p.6 #1 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
johnvanr wrote:
Maybe because it’s because I’m Dutch and thus well acquainted with honesty that borders on rudeness (my uncles after not seeing me for decades: “you got fat”), that I don’t think anyone is rude here. It’s just direct.
I think Mitch opened himself up to the criticism he received. In that sense, the question this thread discusses was answered: it very much depends on the viewer whether something is meaningful to him/her irrespective of whether it was meaningful to the creator. Obviously, it was and is meaningful to Mitch, as it was to others. It’s not meaningful to everybody, though.
What strikes me is that some say it’s meaningful because it reminds them of having been to Thailand. That’s yet another dimension, because that separates the subject of the image from the actual value of the image itself, just like a snapshot of a kid is rather meaningless unless it’s your own kid....Show more →
What might not be meaningful to A can be very meaningful to B. There are a lot of things that I don't find meaningful to me but I do recognize that there are others that it might be meaningful to.
p.6 #3 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
airfrogusmc wrote:
What might not be meaningful to A can be very meaningful to B. There are a lot of things that I don't find meaningful to me but I do recognize that there are others that it might be meaningful to.
I think that’s what I’ve been saying all along. But the flipside of that is that if someone posts something claiming it’s meaningful, that others may say that it isn’t. Why then get upset about what those others say?
p.6 #5 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
airfrogusmc wrote:
So it can be meaningful if it's only meaningful to the creator.
I would hope so. If the creator is doing a bunch of work that is not meaningful to him…why is he doing it? Grab a beer, put your feet up and watch the Blue Jays trounce the Yanks…now that’s meaningful.
p.6 #6 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
Here is a link for an LRB article titled, The Meaninglessness of Meaning by Michael Wood, who is an emeritus professor at Princeton. He has written books on Yeats, Nabokov, Stendhal, Hitchcock and Empson; he also writes for the New Yorker. The article is about 10 books by and about Roland Barthes, who is not easy to read either in the French original or the translations in English. I haven't had the time to read it, but the title is irresistible — looks like the devil made me post this!
p.6 #7 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
airfrogusmc wrote:
I think the work in question is meaningful to some. I know it is meaningful to the creator.
Well, now we’re dealing with yet another dimension, because a lot of people seem to assume that what’s meaningful to them is of any value to me. And the fact that it mostly isn’t, is the reason I don’t frequent many photosharing places.
For example, I recently joined the MFT subreddit. Of course, some people post nice images taken with a MFT camera, but a lot of it is pure drivel to me. I’m afraid that drivel is going to make me leave that subreddit.
But I also recently saw the 2025 World Press Photo exhibit. None of it was meant to be art when it was created, but 99% of it was meaningful to me. And 100% of it was great photography.
p.6 #8 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
Mitch Alland wrote:
Here is a link for an LRB article titled, The Meaninglessness of Meaning by Michael Wood, who is an emeritus professor at Princeton. He has written books on Yeats, Nabokov, Stendhal, Hitchcock and Empson; he also writes for the New Yorker. The article is about 10 books by and about Roland Barthes, who is not easy to read either in the French original or the translations in English. I haven't had the time to read it, but the title is irresistible — looks like the devil made me post this!
p.6 #9 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
johnvanr wrote:
Well, now we’re dealing with yet another dimension, because a lot of people seem to assume that what’s meaningful to them is of any value to me. And the fact that it mostly isn’t, is the reason I don’t frequent many photosharing places.
For example, I recently joined the MFT subreddit. Of course, some people post nice images taken with a MFT camera, but a lot of it is pure drivel to me. I’m afraid that drivel is going to make me leave that subreddit.
But I also recently saw the 2025 World Press Photo exhibit. None of it was meant to be art when it was created, but 99% of it was meaningful to me. And 100% of it was great photography. ...Show more →
"Art for art’s sake is dead, if it ever lived."-Edward Steichen
p.6 #10 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
airfrogusmc wrote:
"Art for art’s sake is dead, if it ever lived."-Edward Steichen
You seem to be a photographer whose work is highly regarded and appreciated. I too do like a lot of what I see from you. But I’m not going to draw wider conclusions based on that.
I have been to soup kitchens (as a journalist), where I got to talk with people who filled notebooks full of their art. They showed their creations to me. To them, their creations were a true expression of their feelings and meaning. To me, they either looked like gibberish or I didn’t have the time to find anything deeper.
At the moment, Damien Hirst has an exhibit here in a Vienna. I think he’s a BS artist. But many think highly of him. And obviously, the most highly regarded museum in Austria thinks it’s art.
Who am I to make pronouncements about what is art and what isn’t? Especially, since it doesn’t matter what I think, as long as I don’t can afford “art” anyway.
p.6 #11 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
Mitch Alland wrote:
But I repeatedly, from the first page onwards, have said that was not my intention — and even in the first line of the original post, I've stated that title of the thread was "click-bait."
Yet ... it still planted the mindset into others.
I appreciate the "not my intention", aspect.
My point is that it still set the tone (for some folks), whether it was your intention, or not. Just a point that going forward, folks might give a bit of credence to using such tactics / approach. For some, it might be viewed as a bit sophomoric approach (for an intended earnest discussion), that sets a less than ideal starting point.
Not the end of the world, just I think it didn't help your cause on this one. Food for thought (i.e. future posts, etc.).
p.6 #12 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
johnvanr wrote:
You seem to be a photographer whose work is highly regarded and appreciated. I too do like a lot of what I see from you. But I’m not going to draw wider conclusions based on that.
I have been to soup kitchens (as a journalist), where I got to talk with people who filled notebooks full of their art. They showed their creations to me. To them, their creations were a true expression of their feelings and meaning. To me, they either looked like gibberish or I didn’t have the time to find anything deeper.
At the moment, Damien Hirst has an exhibit here in a Vienna. I think he’s a BS artist. But many think highly of him. And obviously, the most highly regarded museum in Austria thinks it’s art.
Who am I to make pronouncements about what is art and what isn’t? Especially, since it doesn’t matter what I think, as long as I don’t can afford “art” anyway....Show more →
THANKS.
When I go out to photograph, I never think of making art. I just go out and work. I'll leave all that stuff to others. Some like my work, some don't It's all good.
I'm not familiar with the artist that you mentioned but remember that time and ultimately history usually decides what is or isn't important. Rarely is it decided in the moment.
p.6 #13 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
Marcel Duchamp did it all 40 years before Hirst was even a twinkle in his father's eye and did better. Duchamp could be seen as the grandfather of conceptual art.
p.6 #15 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
RustyBug wrote:
Yet ... it still planted the mindset into others.
I appreciate the "not my intention", aspect.
My point is that it still set the tone (for some folks), whether it was your intention, or not. Just a point that going forward, folks might give a bit of credence to using such tactics / approach. For some, it might be viewed as a bit sophomoric approach (for an intended earnest discussion), that sets a less than ideal starting point.
Not the end of the world, just I think it didn't help your cause on this one. Food for thought (i.e. future posts, etc.)......Show more →
Yes, the unfortunate thing is that what you write above is true. An ironic title is read literally, despite the fact that all my posts state the opposite. Not really worth starting a thread under those conditions, Moreover, the few really good and insightful posts are given almost no attention, like that of @petersm59 on p.1 #20; and other good posts get the shallowest of discussion. I had thought that it was a good idea to have a thread that encouraged posting series of photos without being limited to one brand of camera but turns out I was wrong. This whole thing's been a mistake and a waste if time. No need for anyone to reply to this post.
p.6 #16 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
Mitch Alland wrote:
few really good and insightful posts are given almost no attention, like that of @petersm59@ on p.1 #20; and other good posts get the shallowest of discussion.
Quality vs. Quantity ... the two aren't interchangeable. Sure, it can be nice when both are present, but I think reading the tea leaves of non-response needs to be viewed judiciously, moreover than judgmentally.
You referenced the 3D thread for its volume (with sarcastic disdain), early in this thread to compare against the lack of dialogue in this one ... where, the quantity of folks who were intent to contribute non-lens oriented dialogue was voluminous. If you are using quantity of dialogue as a benchmark, and acting to spur the quantity ... well, you get the gist. Sometimes spurring things jumpstarts things. Other times, it jolts folks in a direction you weren't prepared for. Poke the bear, spur the horse ... either run increase the risk of getting undesired results, in an attempt to get an elevated quantity of result. Comes with the territory. Folks should understand that whenever they seek to poke or spur something. Don't fault the bear, the dog or the horse when it responds differently from the poking, kicking or spurring, than one was hoping for.
As to the topic itself ... to meet your request to share street images, there already exists an entire presentation forum. Also, there is a separate thread in the Alt Forum for it.
From that, the only thing folks could really take from you starting a specific thread, was that you wanted to specifically discuss meaningless vs. meaningful ... and by inference ... well, you know the rest. Those puzzle pieces are inextricably intertwined between what was done and what wasn't done, to convey things into the mindset of others.
This one was a spur, that incurred some jolts.
IF you're gonna make it a point to spur things, hold on for the ride.
P.S. Mistake / waste of time ... I wouldn't go so dramatic. Just a bumpy road, and some lessons learned, maybe.
If you truly believe the topic to be meaningful, abandonment doesn't exactly send that message. Rather, abandonment conveys some other things.
p.6 #17 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
Mitch Alland wrote:
Yes, the unfortunate thing is that what you write above is true. An ironic title is read literally, despite the fact that all my posts state the opposite. Not really worth starting a thread under those conditions, Moreover, the few really good and insightful posts are given almost no attention, like that of @petersm59@ on p.1 #20; and other good posts get the shallowest of discussion. I had thought that it was a good idea to have a thread that encouraged posting series of photos without being limited to one brand of camera but turns out I was wrong. This whole thing's been a mistake and a waste if time. No need for anyone to reply to this post....Show more →
I'm used to crickets as a response, for both my words and photos. Thing is, what gets me going leaves most people cold. What I find meaningful, others find empty. We all have to accept this as how things are. Only photos of sunsets, kittens, puppy dogs, and naked ladies seem to be universally adored, every other subject seems to be open to polarization. And even when meaningful dialog is attempted, it's often shouted down or drowned out by everyone arguing about syntax. Such is our society.
If anyone here would like to engage on a deeper level, PM me and we can exchange emails and try to dig a bit deeper. Unfortunately, I think trying to do this in a public forum is folly.
p.6 #18 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
petersm59 wrote:
What I find meaningful, others find empty. We all have to accept this
We all have varying frame of reference ... and thus ^ is spot on, whenever you ask a subjective oriented question.
So, it should be inherently understood that when you ask such subjective leading questions ... you'll get different sets of answers and perspectives, from a variety of different folks.
p.6 #19 · The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
petersm59 wrote:
I'm used to crickets as a response, for both my words and photos. Thing is, what gets me going leaves most people cold. What I find meaningful, others find empty. We all have to accept this as how things are. Only photos of sunsets, kittens, puppy dogs, and naked ladies seem to be universally adored, every other subject seems to be open to polarization. And even when meaningful dialog is attempted, it's often shouted down or drowned out by everyone arguing about syntax. Such is our society.
If anyone here would like to engage on a deeper level, PM me and we can exchange emails and try to dig a bit deeper. Unfortunately, I think trying to do this in a public forum is folly. ...Show more →
