Category: da net

Theory of the Question

Posted on Posted in Carp Fishing, da net, dye transfer, the fora

Ask a question. The response will depend upon who you are, who you ask, the circumstances, the form of the quesion– spoken, written….
the theory of the human, and the respondents theory of you–
what level of questioner are you? How much effort do they need to give to their answer. What will they gain.
How you answer on a first date, a job interview, an FBI interrogation, your chemistry quiz — all answers are based upon your assumption of an intent, and the reaction you need from the questioner.

“We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.”
– Anais Nin

Asking The Net

On the net, most answer to be included. Most answers are opinion, since most questions are based upon a vague or open ended topic. On a tech focused yahoo group I passed a question along.. since this group of 500+ listeners includes many former practitioners of dye transfer, I expected some open response. I did get response, but it fell into a very conventional cycle — answers without expanding understanding… The group consists mostly of hangers on, passive observers — the typical onlooker grouping. They will be happy with gossip. One site provides them talk that they will use on some other place.

net words

fools believe their knowledge complete.. assume that others aren’t as aware, don’t have as much knowledge as they have.
only fools have complete knowledge; or enough

Your Boundary

You bring your own boundary with you. Your limits limit your answer, often by providing a narrow interpretation of the question — frequently this is a view of the questioner.

Who Is The Qustioner

Is the question credible. With any “who’ there is power .. a relationship to an audience. The respondent must support their own self concept, somethimes by rejecting the question, since they don’t understand the qustioner, or respect them

Response Sequence

Q–ME

Ra.1 Jack Denman : what I know about it …
Rb.1 Andrew Cross : from what Frank M … ’98
Rc.1 Ctein : personally I think that’s a pretty silly hypothesis.
— he counters each of the prior posters questions and each answer.
This asserts his primacy of place, his experience as alpha. And completely misunderstands the question, the recent history, and of any understanding I may have. Aside: no one noticed that I had taught a recent class, perhaps, the only class in this decade, maybe this century about dye transfer.
Ra.2 Jack Denman : don’t want to quibble, (answered later parts of Ctein)
=================================
about: Ra — no experience. retired tech user. not a user of DT
Rb. — workshop trained. engineer, teacher. user of DT
Rc. — self taught. educated non-practicing physicist. writer. individual proprietor of photo services. widely known, yet unable to excel or grow a lab business

 

 

What I Have Against the Fora

Posted on Posted in da net, dumbo, the fora, visual mind

Do I have something against those online talk groups?
What, or why does it matter?

They are found, pointed out by people and bots. Google is the major router, since it is a simple minded algorithm,  it directs traffic the way traffic is already heading. They are unaware of a broader use of the mechanics they spend so much time on. They are, at best, a bad adult ed center, focused on keeping the bodies coming; yet without motive… nope, their is motive, they are believers. They believe that photography, as applied by limiting range of subjects, becomes an art. Further, more by neglect than by plan, they reduce the options under discussion, limiting it to a vantage point which peaked in the mid 60’s.

This means that as you frequent them, you become them — you, too, become a true believer, and avoid discussion encountering or encouraging work beyond those early foundation choices. This limits vocabulary, which reduces the range of visual mind. They clutter the field seemingly knowledgeable, but they purposely limit discussions– they miss, and cause you to miss the alternate skills … skills not found, nor likely to be discussed on Format Forums –too much background knowledge needed — knowledge formed by a different experience of the world

Why it matters to me? If you had wider range of aesthetic choices, you would have several possible answers. One of which is that you could matter more

childhood ends — but mature action isn’t next, that comes even later

They limit palette, and vocabulary, while reducing your choices. This means that I have to wade through more imagery to locate work that has grown past the camera stage.

Photography Grew

By 1970 photography had established its own history; its own courses, syllabi, as well as an alternate market scheme. As it matured it stalled, almost certainly to regurgitate what photographers had already formulated. At that point photography was saved from itself by being accepted as a medium by painters and sculptors. In the 70’s, photography was almost annexed by other artists. If the glory boys, so adored by the Formatoria, hadn’t devoured themselves, photography would have stay stuck on the Sierra trails, showing itself only in the National Park Concession Stands.
That didn’t happen. Photography was saved by the young counter-photographers.

and so it goes…

An alternate version – updated, here in summary of other pages on this site –

FORA OUTLINE  NTS:fora

  • tale of two chicagos
  • architecture photographers — local / location
  • chicago randys
  • generically dangerous
  • cycle of increasing awareness

There was a source of PROs- people who were both proficient, and productive. They shared by showing, both in studio and school labs. We are further from that source information, so most of what the forums provide is wrong, or lies. perhaps bullshit

Forums As Bullshit

bullshit bookFrankfurt presents a definition specific to its use in communication: bullshit can be neither true nor false; hence, the bullshitter is someone whose principal aim—when uttering or publishing  bullshit—is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression that something is being or has been done, words that are neither true nor false, and so obscure the facts of the matter being discussed. p.61, On Bullshit.