civilized ku # 762 ~ wherein I rest my case with prima-facie evidence
Monday, November 8, 2010 at 09:09AM 
20th floor view ~ Ommni Hotel - Montreal, CA • click to embiggenHere's an "out-of-context" quote:
... saying so* in the art world was tantamount to asking to be crucified on the cross of effete elitism ~ Mark Hobson
Here's the "context" as "Zed E." (no link provided - as is always the case in a screed of this kind) sees it:
A long time ago Mark M. said this blog was either silly or insane. I say its both and very, very funny.
What kind of a person starts his tome "on seeing" by calling other professional photographers talentless hacks but then claims he is so sensitive (to corrupting your own personal vision dear and gentle reader) that he is afraid to explain his own photographic process to you?
What kind of person spends multiple blog posts blessing you with his wisdom on seeing and rants about how dangerous it is to make pretty pictures, look at pretty pictures, or take advice advice from pretty picture makers - then - after all of the drama queen ranting - finally gets around to telling you dear and gentle budding photographer that all along he ultimately believed that unless you were born with the artist's eye (like he was) that you are just wasting your time listening to anything he or anyone else has to say about the how or why of the art of photography?
What kind of a person takes the foreword from another photographer's monograph and uses it as a way to congratulate himself about what an amazing artist he is?
What kind of person introduces his own blog post with a self congratulatory nod for being able to see great pictures at 65 miles an hour?
I would keep going but I am laughing too hard now to keep typing.
Mark - why don't you try making good on all of your narcissism and self aggrandizement by having a show of your work at a major gallery or getting a monograph of your fine art work published by someone besides Shutterfly?
Or why don't you post some testimonials from all of the students you have inspired at your Picturin' Chautauquas?
Anyone with two brain cells in their head to put together knows whats going on here:)
Anyone else that takes anything written here seriously deserves whatever they get.
I can't thank you enough for all the laughs!
Considering all of the above I have one suggestion. If you ever change the name of the blog I think either - The Feedback Escapist - or - The Hobson Quote Mining Company - would work just great.
Oh and here a couple of requests. Even though I know now you think we are all hopeless from birth and I know now that I will probably never be able to see at even 30 miles an hour - please, please, please don't ever quit your heroic efforts to protect me and all of the other little photographers from the big pretty picture boogie man.
And please keep quoting out of context as much as possible. I love that!
Thank you again.
my response: no response required because, after all, it's all good.
BTW & FYI, stay tuned later this AM for more of my rough draft / thinking-out-loud thoughts and opinions, re: on seeing.
*some people have a "god-given" gift, whereas, some people just weren't in that line when the gifts were being doled out
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: even though I wrote: "no response required because, after all, it's all good ...
My response: .... I should point out that, over a number of future entries, I will refer, directly or obliquely, to a number of the ill-informed, un-formed, or downright ignorant statements made by Zed E. In fact, I am considering the coining (and subsequent use thereof) of the word(s), "Zedēistic" or "Zedēesque" to denote ill-informed, un-formed, downright ignorant, and/or animus-istic statements / comments (whenever / where ever they arise)
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Scott Hussy wrote, re: my sports analogy (in civilized ku # 760): "I think it is debateable if a team made up of only Mario Lemieuxs would be succesful. For starters, I am not sure Mario Lemiuex would be a very good goaltender...
my response: when I expressed the idea of a sports team made of "superstars", I meant a sports team that was made of all-stars - the best forwards, the best defensemen, the best goaltenders,etc.
I would also note that Mario Lemeiux relied significantly upon his exceptional and prodigious "god-given" talent/gifts (which should not be misconstrued as a lack of commitment or dedication on his part). His injury-plague hockey career was due in large part - his bout with cancer excepted - to his oft-criticized early-career failure to tend to "off-ice time spent working out" which, in fact, because of his failure to do so, resulted in a career of "show(ing) up on game day and play(ing) without practicing".
And, while it is true that, as you state, "Mario Lemieux did not turn 18, put on a pair of skates, and start playing in the NHL", it is true that, when he did start playing hockey at a very young and tender age, he did step onto the ice and start playing at level that was far and away very superior to that of "mere mortals".
Reader Comments (2)
The hockey analogy is an interesting one, but in my opinion is somewhat incomplete.
For started, there is the example of a player like Brad Marsh. I do not think anyone, including Brad Marsh himself, would compare Brad Marsh's talent level to Mario Lemieux's. However, Brad Marsh still had a very long and succesful career in the NHL, mostly because he worked very hard and knew his limitations and abilities.
There is also the point that Mario Lemieux did not turn 18, put on a pair of skates, and start playing in the NHL. Mario Lemieux did not show up on game day and play without practicing, and spending time working out off the ice either. A lot of work goes into developing and maintaining skill and conditioning.
I think it is debateable if a team made up of only Mario Lemieuxs would be succesful. For starters, I am not sure Mario Lemiuex would be a very good goaltender, but I could be wrong.
Hockey is very much a team sport, and a hockey team is succesful when the individuals that make up that team do their jobs and work together. An individual may be talented, but talent alone is never enough; look at someone like Paul Coffee, or ask your art teacher friend about students that think they do not have anything to learn because they are 'talented.'
Talent is nice, but it is not everything.
I look at your work, and I see the visual order in your composition. Maybe the issue is that you do not understand your own process. Maybe there is an opportunity for you to learn something yourself.
I was about to comment on Mark's post, when I got bogged down in the sentence in the comment by Scott beginning 'The hockey analogy is an interesting one'. I've read Mark's post, and the comment, from beginning to end but can't for the life of me see anything to do with hockey. I am from the UK, so maybe that has something to do with it? Please enlighten me!
Regarding the post itself, I found myself nodding in agreement with Zed E as I read his comment. Mark, you take some wonderful pictures, and I'd have thought they were good enough to stand on their own, without the pseudo 'Zen and the art of' etc. blurb that always accompanies them. I love your still lives, always. I don't really feel I need to be advised to shy away from 'pretty pictures' though; I don't see anything wrong with pretty pictures, and I think it rather disingenuous to argue that anyone who likes them needs 'educating'.