tripod
Well-known
Don't get me started on churches! :bang:
williams473
Well-known
Wow - I log back in to check the thread today and discover the post has gone down the endless road of political squabbling -- Amos had it right -- I was indeed referring to the quandary one has when trying to figure out how to make one's country better through photography. I am an American, so I know what's wrong with my country, and have strong opinions about it. I figured I would offend some folks like Bill who think that criticising one's own country is unpatriotic. Actually, the way I see it, I agree with Bill that really an American is quite well qualified to criticise America, although it is also possible that it is easier to have a strategic view of a situation when you are not mired in the day to day tactical issues. So, I really don't know how we even got going down this road, except that Bill takes offense to me seeing improvements that desperately need to be made in this country, and his condescending tone and elitist attitude regarding his service brought out the worst in a few of the posters. I think a stand up comic put it best in saying that arguing on the internet is like j*rking off - except you have nothing to show for it when you're done.
So to bring it back to photography, I think I have gleaned some good info and opinions (minus the right and left wing stuff, which I've heard a million times from both sides) that both encourage and sober me. In the end I am figuring maybe there's no real harm in continuing on - even if it amounts to nothing, it's still better than sitting home and watching T V. I've met some really interesting folks when out street shooting, I got thrown in jail in Russia, I've had to run for my life - man that's some fun!
I also feel that when one focuses all of their mind on making pictures, one goes to a creative pool in the group consciousness that can't be anything but good for you - I know when I've finished shooting for the day and know I did some good work, it's the same feeling I used to get from leaving church - "all is well, I did the right thing today."
This is supposed to be the "philosophy" section of the site, so if you only want to read about gear or developing techniques, don't post here, right? This is my favorite area of RFF precisely because to me, photogrpahy is simply one way to get at much larger issues. In philosophy there are no easy answers - the point is to air your opinions and through CONSTRUCTIVE discussion, discover new ideas - the strength of the group.
So to bring it back to photography, I think I have gleaned some good info and opinions (minus the right and left wing stuff, which I've heard a million times from both sides) that both encourage and sober me. In the end I am figuring maybe there's no real harm in continuing on - even if it amounts to nothing, it's still better than sitting home and watching T V. I've met some really interesting folks when out street shooting, I got thrown in jail in Russia, I've had to run for my life - man that's some fun!
I also feel that when one focuses all of their mind on making pictures, one goes to a creative pool in the group consciousness that can't be anything but good for you - I know when I've finished shooting for the day and know I did some good work, it's the same feeling I used to get from leaving church - "all is well, I did the right thing today."
This is supposed to be the "philosophy" section of the site, so if you only want to read about gear or developing techniques, don't post here, right? This is my favorite area of RFF precisely because to me, photogrpahy is simply one way to get at much larger issues. In philosophy there are no easy answers - the point is to air your opinions and through CONSTRUCTIVE discussion, discover new ideas - the strength of the group.
tripod
Well-known
williams473 said:
Oh, if that's all you wanted to know, then sure, go ahead. Nothing wrong with doing photography if it makes you feel good.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
yes, there is a much bigger agenda that has been going on for nearly a century and a half.tripod said:
go read about the warning Charles Chiniquy gave to his friend
Abraham Lincoln.
Chiniquy was so right.
Last edited:
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The Republic has long been killed and buried.
It has been " Rome on the Potomac" since 1868.
It has been " Rome on the Potomac" since 1868.
tripod
Well-known
memphis said:
You're a bit early on the beginning date for evil institutionalized religion, I put it at 500AD or so, but otherwise how can you be so right about religion and so wrong about politics?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Mike,dadsm3 said:
The question I was asking was rather different from the question you answered.
As I said, I had no intention to denigrate the profession of arms.
Nor did I call into question ANY American wars since WW2; indeed, I avoided the very word 'adventurism'.
My question was no more, and no less, than the one I posed. Has there been an American war, since WW2, in direct defence of the homeland?
Implicit in the question, I do not deny, was the possibility that Americans may sometimes have been guilty of adventurism or misguided invasions EDIT: They are not alone in this. I would not dream of suggesting that this was invariably the case; to do so would be as foolish as pretending it was never the case.
The second stage of my argument would have been that it is legitimate (and indeed necessary) to debate which wars are just and winnable; which are just but unwinnable (as the history of Afghanistan may suggest); and which are empty posturing (on all sides).
Perhaps you do not feel that such questions are worth asking.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
tripod said:You're a bit early on the beginning date for evil institutionalized religion, I put it at 500AD or so, but otherwise how can you be so right about religion and so wrong about politics?
actually he may be spot on date wise when you consider the adoption of Sumarian and Babylonian pagan beliefs disguised into the teachings of a certain powerhouse temporal church.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
memphis said:
Bush , Clinton, et al and who is coming next, like life too much to go against the man behind the curtain.
The Zapruter film shows what happens when you think you can call the shots, and they all have seen it.
And as comedian Bill Hicks said, after you get elected you go to a smokey room where you are shown a very clear film taken at Dealey Plaza on Nov.22.63 that you never knew that existed.
On the other question, I agree with what Eric Jon Phelps has to say on Youtube.
lic4
Well-known
You are the man behind your curtain.
Bas
Dough!
lic4 said:
I almost lost your post, had to scan through all the pro-military, anti-military, etc histeria... certainly this thread lost the point.
I find interesting uour optimistic view, and -partially- share it. It is truth that a change towards a more artistic approximation to documentary phography -still serving as a social critique- is, for me too, a good shift.
However, this brings together a couple of consequences that to my humble eyes certainly restrict the possibilities of approximate to this new form of photography as an efficient social critique vehicle (considering efficiency, more or less, by the achievements of masters of documentary photography).
-By making of this a finer form of art, possiby will restrict the mediatization of these new kind of images. Hence, the public will be a minority. I don't see this wrong, since we can see that today, even in its more pure way -I have no doubts that there are excellent documentary photographers out there-, the reach of this photographs is already a minority. However, purely documentary photographies still has a little more chance to make into a more ample audience than, to say, an artistic refinement of pure documentary photography.
-Also there is the "problem" of losing the tough reality of inequalities -that would be the pure social critique- in behalf of art. This point is opened to discuss.
-Lastly, there is a major benefit: considering that it is almost obvious that pre documentary photography as a social critique is more or less inexistant to the normal TV viewer, a finer art of ot could perhaps make it viewable again, by positioning the purely critique side of the image in/between art. I find this one major gain in your optimistic view. This could make it possible to photography as a social critique to scape from the dissociation that we were talking about.
Best,
Bas.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
memphis said:
The country is run by MBAs from Harvard, Yale, and maybe Wharton. At the minimum, the problems we usually blame on Clinton or Bush are actually caused by those MBAs. I mean, how does NAFTA explain sending jobs to Bangalore? Last I checked Bangalore wasn't exactly in North America...
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
xayraa33 said:
By the way, his name was Zapruder. And it really doesn't show as much as one would think. I've seen it frame by frame on various documentaries, and you don't see much.
I'd like to see the clear version though. The original raises more questions in my mind than it answers.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Papers are disappearing. There's a thread on it somewhere ...endustry said:
merlin
Established
Where are our (US) social dissidents? Well, welcome back Ralph Nader, candidate for President of The United States of America ... again.
Say what you want about this obsessive, perennial spoiler of corporate profitability and presidential elections, you can't deny he is the essence of dissidence – and dissonance as an earlier poster joked. Actually, the two go together don't they?
Yes he is pest, a really bothersome person, but he walks the walk, lives in a small home, has no car (they took away his Corvair), and is poorly-dressed and shamelessly obsessive, but most important, Ralph Nader is what America should always be: somewhat dissident, often dissonant, and never a rubber stamp.
I'm glad he's able to do his thing in my country, whether I like it or not.
Say what you want about this obsessive, perennial spoiler of corporate profitability and presidential elections, you can't deny he is the essence of dissidence – and dissonance as an earlier poster joked. Actually, the two go together don't they?
Yes he is pest, a really bothersome person, but he walks the walk, lives in a small home, has no car (they took away his Corvair), and is poorly-dressed and shamelessly obsessive, but most important, Ralph Nader is what America should always be: somewhat dissident, often dissonant, and never a rubber stamp.
I'm glad he's able to do his thing in my country, whether I like it or not.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I've always admired him. He's managed to do on a national scale what many of us have only done in local politics. So few people really get involved day in and day out that one dedicated person can make a difference.
merlin
Established
Al - Heck, LOCAL dissidence is the where it all begins, where we CAN contribute but often don't. Fortunately every town has a least a few, usually unsung, scoffed at, but THERE to keep the politicios a little uncomfortable.
Bruce
Bruce
merlin
Established
Today ... New York Times ... "3 Days With Fidel"
Today ... New York Times ... "3 Days With Fidel"
Speaking of big-time dissidents, I stumbled on some fascinating b&w stills of Castro on tour in the Cuban Boonies circa 1964. The photographs are terrific – the essence of good-old-time photojournalism, and are narrated by the photographer, Richard Eder. One of the opening images shows him loading, I think, a Nikon F, or maybe even an RF SP. Cool stuff!
Today ... New York Times ... "3 Days With Fidel"
Speaking of big-time dissidents, I stumbled on some fascinating b&w stills of Castro on tour in the Cuban Boonies circa 1964. The photographs are terrific – the essence of good-old-time photojournalism, and are narrated by the photographer, Richard Eder. One of the opening images shows him loading, I think, a Nikon F, or maybe even an RF SP. Cool stuff!
gumanow
Snapshooter
Corporate Media... we can't even see our dead soldiers on the news. Short attention spans.
lic4
Well-known
Hi Bas, I shouldn't say that social documentary hasn't created any good, but
I also think that a lot of the aims of it are too short or misguided. Maybe some of the photographers I admire who worked in that area are those who, I find, created work that transcends time and message. What I mean here is that there is a role of art to create dissidence within oneself (protest oneself, transform oneself), which I think is fundamentally more productive globally (and prove as impossibly difficult) as all of the dissidence expressed in this board toward external systems, entities, or individuals. I'm sorry if I seem to be demeaning anyone; I mean no harm or ill-intent.
I also think that a lot of the aims of it are too short or misguided. Maybe some of the photographers I admire who worked in that area are those who, I find, created work that transcends time and message. What I mean here is that there is a role of art to create dissidence within oneself (protest oneself, transform oneself), which I think is fundamentally more productive globally (and prove as impossibly difficult) as all of the dissidence expressed in this board toward external systems, entities, or individuals. I'm sorry if I seem to be demeaning anyone; I mean no harm or ill-intent.