counter customizable free hit
About This Website

This blog is intended to showcase my pictures or those of other photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment - photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because what is true is most often beautiful..

>>>> Comments, commentary and lively discussions, re: my writings or any topic germane to the medium and its apparatus, are vigorously encouraged.

Search this site
Recent Topics
Journal Categories
Archives by Month
Subscribe
listed

Photography Directory by PhotoLinks

Powered by Squarespace
Login

BODIES OF WORK ~ PICTURE GALLERIES

  • my new GALLERIES WEBSITE
    ADK PLACES TO SIT / LIFE WITHOUT THE APA / RAIN / THE FORKS / EARLY WORK / TANGLES

BODIES OF WORK ~ BOOK LINKS

In Situ ~ la, la, how the life goes onLife without the APADoorsKitchen SinkRain2014 • Year in ReviewPlace To SitART ~ conveys / transports / reflectsDecay & DisgustSingle WomenPicture WindowsTangles ~ fields of visual energy (10 picture preview) • The Light + BW mini-galleryKitchen Life (gallery) • The Forks ~ there's no place like home (gallery)


Entries in idiots (7)

Wednesday
Jul182012

FYI ~ idiots / a fish story

His first fish, ever ~ Bog River Flow / Low's Lake - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenThe early history of the Adirondacks - post Revolutionary War through the Civil War - was marked by vast exploitation of the region's watershed woodlands and it was that exploitation that sparked a conservation movement which led to the establishment of the Adirondack Park (1892) and the addition of the "Forever Wild" amendment to the NYS Constitution (1895).

As devastating as the early exploitation was to the natural environment, an even greater "plague" swept over the Adirondacks (post Civil War) with the publishing (1869) of Adirondack Murray's book, Adventures in the Wilderness; or, Camp-Life in the Adirondacks. That runaway best seller led to an invasion of tourists who became know as "Murray's Fools". Not that there weren't an ample supply of tourists prior to that date, but the book created a new stampede of New England "city dwellers" (Murray was a Boston-based preacher) many of whom were referred to by locals, especially the guides, as "sports".

One of the nastier results of this influx, added and abetted by many locals (aka, guides), was the extirpation of many native Adirondack species - the moose, wolf, Canadian lynx, beaver, fisher, eagle, osprey and many others, all wiped out by the pressure of "sports" and their local counterparts (especially trappers) on the wildlife to be found in the region. Apparently, for either fun or profit, most thought there was a nearly unlimited "supply" of hunting, fishing, and trapping targets. Unfortunately, that was proven wrong by many of Murray's Fools and their local counterparts.

Fortunately, as a result of this "sport"ing abuse, a modern ethic of conservation and preservation came into being. One component of that ethic (fishing wise) is known as catch and release wherein fish, even those over the legal size limit, are released after being caught. And it was that ethic which I instilled in Hugo immediately after his first ever catch - I explained to Hugo that this particular fish was not only under the NYS general regulation size limit, but that it also was the sporting thing to do to return the fish to the water and let it grow and thrive for some future fisherman to catch and, hopefully, release.

Not that catching and keeping legal fish - within the size and number limits - for consumption is a bad thing. In fact, we kept and ate one 12 inch specimen for lunch but, for many fisherman it is the pursuit and, when successful, fight to land a fish which matters. That is why, in enlightened fishing competitions, especially those judged by the total length of a day's catch, each competitor is trusted to make his/her own measurements of each fish caught, after which the fish are released. That practice would be in contrast to stringing (aka, killing) the fish caught throughout a competition's time period in order for measurement to be made by a tournament official.

Like, say, these participants did in a local fishing competition (as pictured in our local newspaper).

©P-R PHOTOS/ALVIN REINERNow let me clear on one thing - the participants displaying the fish are not the idiots I refer to in this entry's heading. That moniker is reserved for those idiots at the Elizabethtown Fish & Game Club which sponsored the competition. Most likely the participants were playing by the rules laid down by the EF&GC.

That said, it might be that the tournament was held on privately owned and stocked water where no regulations apply and, therefore, no local or state fishing regulations apply. However, irrespective of time or place, many enlightened F&G clubs consider it a vital part of their mission to teach, by example, and apply modern conservation and preservation ethics. Most likely, the EF&GC does try to foster such an ethic but, IMO, and as evidenced by the published picture, they failed miserably in teaching by example during this particular event.

Monday
Feb282011

civilized ku # 872 ~ on idiocracies and confederacies of dunces, pt II

1044757-11024857-thumbnail.jpg
Dining room window view ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Yesterday, while pursuing the picture maker blog-o-sphere, I came across a link to an incredibly inane and idiotic (see entry above re: my crankiness) "discussion" about what constitutes a "real" photographer. FYI, I am providing no links to the either of the blogs simply because I don't wish to start a flame war with the opinions I am about to express in ...

Encounter/exhibit # 2 (see above entry for # 1) - Granting that the originator of the idiotic idea that there are "real" photographer as opposed to ... what? ... "unreal" / non-real photographers? ... may simply be the victim of his/her own ineptitude, re: the use of the word "real", I still don't understand what purpose is served by attempting to determine what it is that makes a picture maker a "real" photographer as opposed to ... ??????

I mean, get real. A photographer is a person who makes/takes pictures with a camera (or some other still image capture device).

Assuming that the person in question is an actual human being and not, say, a replicant - although apparently even replicants have a relationship to/with photographs (as a part of creating "memories"), I would conclude that every person who makes/takes pictures with a camera is a "real" photographer.

Perhaps this idea of "real" vs not "real" comes from the idea that, picturing making wise, the wheat needs to separated from the chaff, although, for what purpose I don't know. That, in order to be consider as "real", a picture maker must conform to certain standards (and 11 conditions/characteristics are suggested) that denote "seriousness", that is, a requisite and demonstrable seriousness of intent to make good/great pictures.

In response to this idiotic idea, some have suggested that the difference between "real" and non-real is not the point. That the "real" point is the what constitutes the distinction between good photographers and bad photographers.

However, IMO, whatever the idea, the entire concept is utter hogwash, completely inane, and a total waste of time.

No matter the "real"ness or seriousness any given picture maker may possess, if he/she is making pictures with a camera, he/she is a real photographer.

It doesn't matter whether any given picture maker's pictures are judged to be "good" or "bad", he/she is a real photographer.

It doesn't matter whether any given picture maker makes pictures with a M/mickey M/mouse (literally/ figuratively) camera or the latest/greatest techno picture making gadget in the universe, he/she is a real photographer.

It doesn't matter what techniques are employed or what effort it required to make a picture, whoever made it is a real photographer.

It doesn't matter whether any given picture maker's pictures get noticed or not, he/she is a real photographer.

And, the idea that there are rules, characteristics, or traits that define what is or is not a real / serious / successful / photographer or that those rules, characteristics, or traits are what picture makers should aspire to in order to gain "real"ness, be deemed "serious", or judged to be "good" or "bad" is so far off the mark of what it is to be a photographer that, IMO, it qualifies as little more than senseless navel gazing when, in fact, one should be gazing at the world around him/herself and be making pictures.

In short, just get on with making pictures and, in that pursuit, being the best that you can, want, or need to be.

Really. I'm serious.

Thursday
Feb182010

ku # 673 ~ idiots, one and all - pt. II

1044757-5814499-thumbnail.jpg
Nature is chaotic ~ in the Adirondack PARK, NY • click to embiggen
And, once again, I quote:

... Nature is chaotic. Nothing seems to happen with any order or reason. Most scenes are a jumble of elements, competing with each other for attention ...

OK then, I'll grant that the nature photography "expert" in question - the author must be an expert because he was also one of the authors of The Ultimate Guide to Digital Nature Photography - is engaged in "selling soap" and that creating a sense of chaos relative to the problem that his particular brand of soap solves is an honored tradition in the fine art of huckstering, but, come on .... everything in nature happens for a reason even if we humans don't understand or know what the reason is. And, just because we may not know / understand the process doesn't mean that there is not any order to the process.

Sure enough, the author of the preceding statement used the phrase, "seems to happen" as a qualifier of sorts, but, once again, come on .... we know that all that stuff happens for a reason and with some form of natural world order. Simply stated, there is no "seems" about it. If you think there is, then you're an uniformed / uneducated idiot.

So, it just seems to me that the statement is a very bogus starting point relative to looking at the natural world with the intent of picturing it. The statement is very akin to how centerfold / fashion picturing is undertaken. Forget the reality, make a fantasy. Forget the truth. Tell a lie. And then, when questioned about your motives / methods, pass it all off as a harmless "interpretation". After all, everyone knows that it is not real, right?

As for the bit in the statement about "scenes are a jumble of elements, competing with each other for attention" - elements of the natural world are not competing with anything for attention. They are just going about their business of surviving. Even granting that the statement's author meant that a lot of the various elements in a scene capture our attention, isn't that part nature's elemental character?

Why dismiss it? Why work to eliminate it your pictures? Isn't that missing the "point" - the idea that for us to survive, we must embrace, appreciate, and respect the natural world with all of its complexity and, to some extent, its mystery? As opposed to, as our master of the WOW! picture would have us do, embracing and appreciating just the parts that we "understand", aka - the parts that conform to a humankind sense of "order" and "reason". Or, in other words, all of the pretty parts and screw (consume and destroy) the rest.

Monday
Jan192009

ku # 551 ~ shoot 'em all

1044757-2388589-thumbnail.jpg
Looking into the sun through an icy tree and a -23˚F mistclick to embiggen
CAVEAT: It is rarely my intention to speak ill of the dead. In this entry I will speak of the dead but I will try my best to speak ill only of the living.

Just a few days ago Jean Keene, the much heralded (in most quarters) "Eagle Lady" of Homer, Alaska passed away. I am familiar with her works through a couple of online nature photo forum that feature Avian Photography. Her work has been a topic of controversy on these (and other) forums - is she doing a good thing or a a bad thing?

For those of you not familiar with her and her work, her "work" for a couple of decades has been the winter feeding of the eagles of Homer - 500 lbs of fish a day. Over the course of that time, the number of eagles that show up for feeding time has grown to over 200 - 300 or more each and every day. Over that same period of time the number of so-called avian photographers who show up for feeding time has grown into the thousands. So many, in fact, that they drive the winter economy of Homer.

The controversy surrounding her "work" (which, in fact, is really a "hobby", not a job) is the age old one of feeding wild creatures in the wild. For quite a while, this activity has been strenuously frowned upon by wildlife conservationists - it most often has the effect of tending to "domestic" wild creatures which causes them to lose many of their natural instincts for foraging for food. Not to mention that they then also tend to associate food with a human presence. That kind of habituation can lead to nasty encounters between humans and wildlife.

And, in the case of the Eagle Lady, irrespective of her intentions regarding the eagles, the effect of such a large concentration of eagles in one place was to wipe out / drive away the native populations of cranes, loons, and other avian species in that region.

Way to go, Eagle Lady.

And, as an added icing on the cake, now that she's gone the eagle feeding will come to an end - the Town Council of Homer banned feeding the eagles (with the single exception of the Eagle Lady) in Homer - and no one knows how many of the handout-dependent eagles will perish in the absence of a "free" meal.

Way to go, Eagle Lady.

Now, you can judge for yourself whether or not the aforementioned speaks ill of the dead but let there be no doubt about the following.

It is beyond my imagining why avian photographers would take any satisfaction from picturing what amounts to picturing birds feeding in a dump. But apparently quite a number of them do. So many, in fact, that there is a rising chorus of voices in Homer decrying the end of the eagle feeding because of its negative impact upon the local economy. So many, in fact, that it is estimated that over 80% of all of the published pictures of eagles were made in Homer at the Eagle Lady's fish dump.

With the exception of commercial photographers on assignment who need to get in and out quickly with the goods, I am at a complete loss to understand why someone would pay, on average $3,200, to book a "tour" to Homer, Alaska to visit a dump.

Now, I am not unaware of the fact that birders of both the observer and the picturing variety usually have a life-list of birds that they have actually seen and hope to see. They check them off like items on an automat food menu.

But, just like the nearly endless stream of pictures made at iconic locations - Half Dome, Horse Shoe Bend, Old Faithful, Rainbow Arch, et al - I don't understand the weird idea, to my way of thinking, of wanting to picture what has been pictured a zillions times before. I want to avoid like the plague putting my feet and my tripod feet in the same places that have seen a zillion feet and tripod feet before me.

To be completely frank, I am so sick and tired of images of all the iconic places that I don't even want to visit any of these places for any reason whatsoever.

An aside Here in our area, a just recently spotted owl of some kind or another (rarely seen south of the Canadian border) drew hundreds of birders hoping for a sighting and a picture or two. OK, that's fine - everybody needs to have a hobby. Hell, for number of years I collected autographs of famous blues musicians on my Gibson Les Paul guitar although, for what it's worth, I was really "collecting" the music-listening experience.

That said, I also find it totally incomprehensible why someone who claims to appreciate birds so much would partake in an activity that obviously does the species harm - and, as in the case of our Eagle Lady friend, other species as well. Are they so self-absorbed with their own picture making obsession that it's just a matter of damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead? Are they just take-the-easy-way-out assholes who are too f**king lazy to take the time and make the effort to actually picture an eagle in the wild? Something that I assume is a not an especially easy task.

IMO, all of these so-called wildlife/avian photographers are accomplishing little more than those so-called hunters who kill "trophy" game on a game farm - it's nothing more than shooting ducks in a barrel.

Wow. Big deal.

If that's all there were to it, I'd say let them have their "fun". But, unfortunately, in this case, shooting ducks in a barrel does real harm, not only to the "ducks", but also to other species as well. But, then again, maybe I am speaking ill of the dead, because, after all, it wasn't the photographers who were feeding the eagles .... they were just flocking like vultures around the stench of a rotting carcass - 50,000 lbs (a year) of rotting fish carcass to be exact.

Monday
Nov172008

a f***ing idiot ~ moose are returning update

Last week I made an entry about attempting to picture a moose in the wild. In that entry I mentioned the idiots who shot a moose in our area.

Well, those jerks still have the honor of being the worst, but the moron pictured here (from the front page of today's Lake Placid News) is running a close second.

The thing that makes this all the more idiotic is the fact that several onlookers were yelling at and imploring the woman to back off and leave the moose alone. To which she replied, "I know what I'm doing."

The one thing that makes this incident incomplete is that the moose kept her cool and didn't get violent. Not that I want anyone to get hurt (well maybe I really do want that), but if that happens, I certainly hope that the horse doesn't get injured.

Tuesday
Sep092008

step aside good people, it's the "assholes on parade"*

unclesamsm.jpg1044757-1899071-thumbnail.jpg
Uncle Sam and dying flowersclick
to embiggen
As sure as death, whenever one begins a discourse about politics, especially regarding economics, out come the free-market apologists praising the benefits of being poor in America. And, in yesterday's entry, Trevor stepped up to fill the bill:

I think the free-market debate should long ago have been put to bed (it creates the most prosperity for the most people, including those low on the income ladder). (my emphasis)

I am sure that those "low on the income ladder" would be surprised and pleased beyond measure to learn of their "prosperity" when:

• Nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, are without health insurance - The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 9 million people since 2000.
•The number of Americans living in poverty jumped to 35.9 million last year, up by 1.3 million, as the poverty rate among children jumped to its highest level in 10 years - an estimated 13 million children are living in households that are forced to skip meals or eat less due to economic constraints.
•Some 38 million people in America are considered "food insecure" -- they have trouble finding the money to keep food on the table. (all statistics from US Census Bureau data).

Low income prosperity? Hey Trevor, look up oxymoron in the dictionary.

Of course, maybe Trevor is one of those who believe that those the government deem as poor aren't really poor at all because they have a color tv and/or a car. All of which ranks right up there with Reagan's notion that the trouble with America is that the poor are stealing all the money.

Free markets? Andre wrote:

Free market? Did someone say free market? In the USA? That's a good one.
1- Markets are controlled by oligarchs: they are no longer free.
2-American agriculture is still heavily subsidized.
3- And when the market go bankrupts who pays? The industry or the goverment? Who's going to bail out Fanny May and Freddie Mack? The industry or the government? Who bailed out the Saving and Loans Institutions when it was near bankrupted? The industry or the government?

How about the absurd free-market tenet that the market always "gets it right"?

Representatives of the Big 3 automotive companies are petitioning the government for $50Billion in low interest loans because they have been financially staggered by the results of the high price of gasoline which has caused the public to stop buying the high-profit, bloated, gas-guzzling behemoths they are been churning out for years. After all, they were only following tried and true free-market principles - meeting demand and raking in record profits.

The fact that they totally ignored research and development of products to meet the demand for an automotive future that everyone knew was coming - expensive and increasingly scarce gasoline - in order to pad their wallets and those of investors seeking maximum short-term returns (consequences? what consequences?) means that they got it exactly wrong. The fact that Ford & GM had below investment grade ratings long before high gs prices appeared, means that they have been getting it exactly wrong for quite awhile. It means that they were financially staggered by their own greed and greed-induced ineptitude, not by high gas prices.

And then there's W. who proclaimed that, since many Americans are having to choose between food and gas, choosing food and driving less, thus driving down the demand for gas (and thus the price), the market was "working". Human suffering, despair, and disruption is relegated to being a "market mechanism". This from a man who made the bulk of his personal wealth from massive government subsidies and intervention.

And, don't ever, ever, ever forget that it was an unregulated and unrestrained free-market "working" in the mortgage / investment industry that allowed the free-market criminal-class to rake in billions for themselves and leave the industry and our economy in a mess.

Unfortunately, I think Aaron's quote from yesterday's entry was on the money:

Carlin should have run for president while he was alive.

"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope."

And oh yeh, lest I forget - Trevor, if you really believe that those "low on the income ladder" enjoy anything that even begins to approach prosperity, I am certain that you would be happy to trade places with them, right? Go live for a year in the their shoes and then come back and talk to us about prosperity.

* the title of a catchy song by Timbuk 3 - I particularly like the lyric, assholes get elected, 'cause assholes get to vote.

Thursday
Mar202008

civilized ku # 78 ~ gimme a break

lampntrainssm.jpg1044757-1426713-thumbnail.jpg
Lamp lightclick to embiggen
In yesterday's entry I opined about how perfect life would be if photographers could write / speak about pictures it a manner that "got beyond the rules of thirds or how much they like the color."

Well, only a few ticks of the clock later, I found myself over at TOP looking at this picture. The picture is one of those that is worth at least a thousand words - sorrow, pain, loss, grief, respect, honor, sacrifice, life, death, war, the cost of war, and, strangely enough (at least for me), beauty to name just a few that immediately come to mind. The picture also brings to mind a painting, Christina's World, by Andrew Wyeth and a photograph, Child in Forest, by Wynn Bullock.

But for one moronic soul, the words that came to mind were "crop" and "black & white" - "... if it were mine, I think I would convert it to black and white. What do you think? And how about the man in the upper-right background? I wouldn't, but would anyone think to crop him out .... I think that producing this print in B&W would make a very significant difference. To me this photo explains what the photographer saw and felt, but in B&W, I believe it would have made us better understand what the woman was feeling.?"

my response to these comments is simply: "Kiss my ass."

The only thing that this person got right about this photograph is "... this photo explains what the photographer saw and felt", which, for some reason, isn't good enough for him. Nope, like so many critique-ers on photo forums, this guy, no matter what the circumstances, just has to indulge in the ever ubiquitous "how I would have done it" when, in fact, the only thing that matters is that the "photo explains what the photographer saw and felt".

If photography is not about "what the photographer saw and felt", what the hell is it about?

Taking/making a picture is not a group endeavour - looking for a hobby that is? maybe you should consider line dancing. What the eventual observers of a picture might have done in the same situation has absolutely nothing to do with it, despite the outright deception that is fostered on photo sites that "what I would have done" or, "what I like (or don't like)" about a picture is part of the learning process.

This is not to say that looking at pictures made by others and thinking about what works or doesn't 'work' for you or, yes, even thinking 'what you would have done' differently in the same situation in order to best express your voice is not a valid / valuable exercise. But, essentially telling a photographer who is expressing what he/she saw and felt to do it your way is not only pointless, it's downright insulting to the artist.

But, maybe I'm just belaboring a point that is just an essential difference between artists who are hobbyists and those who are Artists, between those who are seeking the roar of the crowd and those who are doing it for themselves - which is not say that those who are doing it for themselves don't want 'feedback' (both verbal and monetary). Most do.

That said, and IMO, the last thing they want to hear is 'how I would have done it". Me, personally, I would much rather hear that one of my pictures is a steaming pile of s**t, totally without merit, and makes no connection at all than, if only I had done it differently, it would be great. Why? Because the former opinion is about how my picture makes someone 'feel' and that is what Art is all about.