Influencers. Naming. Remembering

can you name your influences. How about those you’ve influenced? something all teachers consider.

Mostly, we don’t make a difference that we ever realize. The spoken word ends as it begins.

Claims on forums are a source of ongoing puzzlement. Photography is a small world, isolated but not insulated. The web is just a right-click away. Pride is a terrible memory aide.

Most teachers don’t remember their students well — students are expected to remember some of their teachers. Typically, they remember those who guided well, or who they needed for a career boost. If the teacher had a name, was a member of the canon, they are always listed on the memory page.

What of those students who don’t list you on their extensive friend circle. I wonder more about a teacher citing their student as a badge in their influence-quest. It happens on one forum.

Like this:

Zig Jackson is cited…

Zig Jackson provides a page of people.

Many…. no Gittings. Not even a Kirk.

This doesn’t mean as much as other types of errors made in that forum.

Overlaps occur. Gaps are certain. I graduated from SFAI. Was a TA and knew many of those Mr. Jackson cites in:

.. none of those people influenced my work. I knew them when they had just begun their own career, leaving SFAI (MFA) 73. I left several unsigned papers on making dye-transfer prints. They found their way into other peoples work. None of my students ever looked to me, other than at times they needed a job, or a reference.

as one of my bigger influencers says: and so it goes.

Most of my key, ongoing, recurring influences sit on shelves in my library. I will never thank most of them; ever.

Crafted in Stages

fields share many elements, such as changing vocabularies, needs of skill distinction. As a technology -market ages, it crosses boundaries, unseen until appearing in the the rear-view.

software engineering needed to become, for some, for awhile, Craft.

New imperatives are constant during the changing — their decline means that the edge of the field has gotten into the commercial-culture complex to such a degree that it can be done by any enthusiast. For decades, software advanced through the actions and interests of drawing upon people form other fields — At one point, during early Object adoption, Borland keynotes featured a drag and drop build of a spreadsheet application. It was thought that software tools could be built that would make it so easy to write programs the market for applications would decay.

The front, the first way is always driven by optimists. Succeeding waves become more pessimistic.

We begin with one definition of a word, and end with another, perhaps an opposite meaning. It is the way of language change driven, modulated by the technical commercial complex. It is that way is photography as a chemical process, and certainly that way in imaging as a software system.

Engineers learn math as meaning. Artists learn meaning as math.

At successive stages of skill needs, words distinguish qualifications. Amateur is a keyword in knowing where a field is at.