Hi Shel,
I think characterizing the portraiture on PUG as "someone looking into
the camera and smiling" is condescending and judgmental. I also felt it
was incorrect for you to state unequivocally that documentary style
photos "tend to be a lot more dynamic and interesting." It was opinion
stated as fact. But perhaps I read you wrong. It's easy to do when
there's no inflection or facial expression. In any case, I responded in
the manner that I thought necessary, and I hold no ill will. I consider
it nothing more than robust discourse. I don't think I'm more sensitive
than I was in the past, I'm just more involved at the moment.
Paul
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> Hi Paul, you've been quite sensitive these days. I was just pointing
> out the differences I observed ... I made no judgments. It seems that
> your prejudices are coming through loud and clear, though.
>
> PAUL STENQUIST wrote:
>
> > Do I detect an air of pretension wafting through the oft vacuous halls
> > of the PDML? A portrait is much more than someone "looking into the
> > camera and smiling." A portrait utilizes all the tools at the
> > photographers disposal in an attempt to capture the spirit of the
> > subject. Some fail. Some succeed. But a good portrait is every bit as
> > dynamic as the politically correct, Leica-toter snapshots that you can
> > find where those folks tend to congregate. Yes, I'm being harsh, but
> > those grainy slice-of-life photos are neither more worthy nor more
> > interesting than nature photographs, architectural photographs, or
> > portraits. Flowers are beautiful, and when one can capture or enhance
> > that beauty -- interpret that beauty -- one creates art. Just ask Monet.
> > On a strictly personal level, I find little that interests me in
> > photography that attempts to record the real world. (I did quite a bit
> > of it. I worked as a magazine photographer for many years.) If I'm going
> > to look at world as it really exists, I'd much rather do it in person.
> > If I'm going to record the world on film, I'd rather interpret it. Of
> > course this is a matter of personal taste. But to assume that one type
> > of photography is necessarily more dynamic or more correct than another
> > is nothing more than a pretension. A portrait is not just someone
> > looking into the camera and smiling. And the PUG is packed with artful photographs.
> > Paul Stenquist
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
> --
> Shel Belinkoff
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Why should I use a meter? What if the darn thing broke on me
> when I was out making a photograph? Then what would I do?"
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
