Dear Shel,
Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Boris seems to understand it, as he agreed with the comments. And, if you > were to actually read my comments, If you actually read my comments... yeah right. Amazing rhetorics, Shel. Gotta give you that. I think it is your use of this type of sentences that upsets me in particular about your postings to PDML. If you don't understand why, then please just excuse me for it. Usually I just stay out your hair, and we get along well that way. > you'll see that I like the shots Boris > posted, but that seeing more of the city, about which I know something, > would make for a better, more complete series. The pics that Boris posted > could be anywhere - any wall, any mailbox, any town. Apart from the Hebrew > on the signs, you wouldn't have a clue as to where these photos were taken. > In fact, even with the Hebrew, they could easily have been made in cities > like New York, other areas of Israel, and, at one time, even in India and > some parts of Italy and Spain, amongst others. Um... So what? I see your reasoning, but I don't understand it as an argument against pictures describing somewhere. It is very frequently the little details that make significance. I mean, take your own fancy for mailboxes as an example. Meaningless subjects as such, even the one with the skeleton beside. But when presenting it to the list you gave it a context that made many people curious and fascinated. It could very well have been an important shot in a collection showing the character of a place, even if it was only so-so as a single shot. > It's not a matter of what the place means to me, or anyone else. What I > understand Boris' intention to be is to show a bit of the character and > personality of the city. If correct in that understanding, then Boris > failed in his attempt, at least with the few photos he's posted, however > nice and intriguing they may be. I want to see more, something that shows > the character and the dynamic of the area. Showing a staged photo of a > friend standing in front of a book stall, a single architectural detail, > and a couple of falling down signs does not accomplish this, regardless of > how well executed the photos may be. I take it that we agree about Boris' photos to be well executed. Our disagreement is only over whether his photos convey some character of the place. I see you writing that it doesn't, with reference to your previous knowledge of the place. In doing so, you inevitably put some of your own background into your interpretation of the photos. What's more, you use your knowledge of that place as an argument to support the opinion that his attempt is failed. Now, there's nothing directly wrong about *seeing* a photo like that. It's what we all do all the time; understanding a photo based on our own background. What sucks is when we start *saying* that an interpretation based on a different background than our own, and with a slightly different photographic goal than what we would pursue ourselves, is "failed in the attempt". It is much more fruitful to look again, and see if the photographer has found an unexpected angle, something that can broaden the mind a little bit. Another thing we agree about, though, is that we would both like to see Boris do more shots from the place. I for my part, am most interested to see what Boris' eye and mind would like to show us regardless of the history of the place. For all I know, the place may have changed in a way that could put a fresh perspective to it's past, in a way that could surprise anyone. For an outsider like me, everything is interesting, of course...:-) Thanks for reading, Jostein ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
