Political Forum?

[LaFoto]

You are really smart, did you know that?

Pssst! Señor!!! No need to TELL him! He DOES know he's smart! He sure does!

 

[PNA]

Hertz, how do you argue photography from a Marxist view? I know its possible, so I'm not questioning that. But I do find myself intrigued as to how a Marxist would view photography. I think they'd be okay with it as long as every single person had the same exact brand of camera to take photos with, you know? And then the Marxist would probably mention something about the, "Bourgeoisie," and the, "Proletariat revolution," when all you really want to know is if the depth of field in your portrait photo isolates the subject adequately.

Now you've gone and done it.....somewhere in Marxist town, there's Ivan jumping up and down shouting "not true, not true" and he's ready to take on the most intense mud slinging political debate your Capitalistic ass has ever seen!:lmao::lmao:

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Hertz, how do you argue photography from a Marxist view?

Quite easily. You do a criticism of a photograph from a Marxist point of view (that is to say, examining it from the viewpoint of Marxist political ideology).
For example, even a cursory examination of any advertising photograph would reveal that it attempts to promote and maintain various Capitalist myths, such as the Dream of Plenty.
This approach to Photography and photographic criticism was a fad of the 70's and 80's. Us intellectuals have now moved on to post-Marxism. Haven't you read Habermas and Adorno? :mrgreen:

 

[Rhys]

I don't think a political forum's a good idea either. From a few sites I've been on - nearly every political discussion ends up turning nasty - One particular site people were getting banned because they tried to debate some points one specific person believed in (an admin with access to ban people etc) if anyone else supported the people that disagreed they in turn got banned or warned off.

Hmm... I found a couple of forums like that. I remember one debate started on aviation security and photography then developed into a debate as to how effective/ineffective security was before anybody that disagreed with the site moderator's view that security was just peachy got banned. And yes - that included me and subsequently my views have been proven correct.

 

[Senor Hound]

Quite easily. You do a criticism of a photograph from a Marxist point of view (that is to say, examining it from the viewpoint of Marxist political ideology).
For example, even a cursory examination of any advertising photograph would reveal that it attempts to promote and maintain various Capitalist myths, such as the Dream of Plenty.
This approach to Photography and photographic criticism was a fad of the 70's and 80's. Us intellectuals have now moved on to post-Marxism. Haven't you read Habermas and Adorno? :mrgreen:

I was thinking more along the lines of something which would be more difficult to find any Marxist ideologies in, like a macro of a flower or something. But I'm sure someone with enough creativity and intelligence (like you) could think of it.

As far as reading post-Marxism, that's a no. I have some issues with ADD, so a lot of books I just cannot read for the life of me. I'll read one whole chapter, only to find out I have no idea what I just read. Maybe some Habermas (isn't that a chili pepper? ) by means of book-on-tape would suit me.

Most of my info I digest by means of second source. I know its not as accurate, but the condensation it provides is crucial to me. But it shows whenever I talk to someone who knows their stuff. And since I'm only 24, I still have a lot more reading to do. I just recently learned about Marxism, so my mind hasn't evolved to post-marxism yet.

Thank you for your comment, sir.

 

[Josh66]

The only forums I go to where political discussions work out are the ones where everyone shares the same political views. It's not really arguing, more like sharing news and then talking about it.

On a forum as diverse as this one it's probably never going to work.

 

[Senor Hound]

On a forum as diverse as this one it's probably never going to work.

I can see it now...

During a critique:

"This photo is soft, much like your stance on immigration."

"Your subject has strong definition, unlike the US's definition on cruel and unusual punishment, which is too vaguely defined."

"This shot needs some serious re-framing, just like our constitution does."

 

[bigalbest]

I can see it now...

During a critique:

"This photo is soft, much like your stance on immigration."

"Your subject has strong definition, unlike the US's definition on cruel and unusual punishment, which is too vaguely defined."

"This shot needs some serious re-framing, just like our constitution does."

Oh man that is a crackup great post.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

I haven't read many responses, 'cause frankly I don't have the time to read all of them...

But I will raise this: what makes politics so different than our photography?
And what I mean by that is this; we all hold our photography to a certain personal level, as some people do with their political views, so why are the two so different, with one being forbidden in discussion? Am I the only one that'd be more offended by someone hating a piece of art I created (which certainly happens on a photography forum) than with someone disagreeing (or hating as it may be) with my views in the political spectrum?

I'm not even sure exactly what I'm trying to say, haha, hopefully someone gets what I'm getting at, I'm tired. But basically, I just wanna talk politics, and I don't see why we shouldn't be able to.

Oh, and one more thing; so basically people just don't want to have everyone get all heated or whatever, which I guess I can understand, but if that's the case, then we might as well ban people critiquing, 'cause we know what can happen there. And we can forbid other things too, like disagreeing on anything. I don't see why politics should be forbidden in the off-topic section. Basically it seems like this forbidding of politics is just a way to control the masses and prevent 'arguing' or something. Thanks mom and dad, haha.

 

[PNA]

Basically it seems like this forbidding of politics is just a way to control the masses and prevent 'arguing' or something. Thanks mom and dad, haha.

In the scheme of life you statement is true, control is the basis of everything. That's we all have strong feeling and opinions about politics and religion.

However, within this particular forum, Photography and the art associated with capturing unique subjects is the foundation which it's built upon. Any serious deviation from this objective would be a distraction and eventually collapse of the forum. Also, the forum owner and associated mods would have to be GODS to control the magnitude of dissention.



Frankly it's refreshing to see the younger generation take up governmental issues.
PM me and I'll discuss all the political points of view you offer.....

 

[Trenton Romulox]

In the scheme of life you statement is true, control is the basis of everything. That's we all have strong feeling and opinions about politics and religion.

However, within this particular forum, Photography and the art associated with capturing unique subjects is the foundation which it's built upon. Any serious deviation from this objective would be a distraction and eventually collapse of the forum. Also, the forum owner and associated mods would have to be GODS to control the magnitude of dissention.



Frankly it's refreshing to see the younger generation take up governmental issues.
PM me and I'll discuss all the political points of view you offer.....

I might have to take you up on that offer, 'cause politics are quite interesting to me. And most of the views I encounter up here in Maine are rather frustrating. I guess any state I go to will offer me frustration though.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I was thinking more along the lines of something which would be more difficult to find any Marxist ideologies in, like a macro of a flower or something.

It is not difficult at all.
You merely look at the forces working to produce that image.
All images (at least those produced in some way by 'real' people) are the product of the sub-conscious. That is to say, the reasons why you take an image - and that make you take that particular image in that particular way - are the result of influences outside of yourself that in general you are not aware of.
Often you take a picture merely because you think you should or because you feel it is 'expected' of you. The way you take it and the style in which you take it are usually dictated by your aspirations ('I want my picture to look like a similar picture I once saw that I admired so that I can emulate the photographer of that picture and therefore pretend that I am like him').
This means that there is always a social dimension to every picture and this dimension can be analysed - or 'read' - from a Political viewpoint.
As we are surrounded by Capitalist culture obsessed with wealth and material goods our images reflect this and so lend themselves nicely to a Marxist reading.
This is a very, very simplistic view. Our sub-conscious is complex and the influences on it many and varied so an individuals reasons for taking a picture can be complex. A critical reading of an image can only be done in general terms - and because of the complexity of the subject allow of multiple interpretations. And there is no way to verify the correctness of your assumptions.
If you want to see a good example of Marxist reading at work then read Roland Barthes or his followers. :mrgreen:

 

[ferny]

'I want my picture to look like a similar picture I once saw that I admired so that I can emulate the photographer of that picture and therefore pretend that I am like him'

I always feel guilty about admitting this, but I don't follow photographers. Certainly famous ones. I could only name Adams if asked and that's through comments about them on here, not seeing any photos. I used to follow all the posts on this site and admired and felt inspired by many. Now I don't have time to view photos (I know...) so my only inspiration comes from what I've seen in the past. Films, books, advertising, etc. I like to think I'm doing everything out of my own head, my own ideas. But as you say everyone has a subconscious. That being said, we all have a different personality. So any photograph not taken with the aim to emulate one you've seen is your own work.

Although I'm embarrassed to make the above statement and am aware it may make others looked down on me as a unlearned fool I'm equally proud of it. Happy to know I'm not following a trend of fashion as a result of direct influences or peers.

I assess myself (analyze) too often and if I start to notice I'm becoming a sheep and following the crowd without thinking - not being myself - I hate it. The thing is (and I'd expect you've noticed this yourself), when you do things differently to others you start to notice them falling in behind you. Leaning your way and taking on your traits/thoughts/hobbies/ideas. And if you start to do something new or think along a different plane to what they expect they get grumpy. No-one is completely independent, but some more so than others.


Wow, what a load of rambling ********.



As for discussing politics? I don't give a rats about politics. It's not something which interests me. Although I find it amusing that some would rather not discuss such things with their friends for risk of falling out with them. Surely if you can't talk openly with a friend then either they're not a friend or you're incapable of surrounding yourself with people who have thoughts independent of your own. IE, very closed minded and boring.

So, how's the weather?
Yeah, cakes are nice.
Do you like my new shoes?

 

[Hertz van Rental]

So any photograph not taken with the aim to emulate one you've seen is your own work.

But you do not know if this is ever the case.
Sub-conscious means below the level of our conscious perception so although we may think we are not influenced by anything this is never the case.
And the influence does not have to come from a famous photographer.
It can come from any image we have seen.
If, for example, you go through a lot of family albums from lots of different families you will be amazed by how many 'standard' images appear in all of them - that is to say, the same general situation appears to elicit the same pose and result in pretty much the same photograph.
It happens way to often to be a coincidence.
Again, wedding photographs could all be pretty much the same because of the photographers all working the same. But given the choice most couples would select pretty much the same images as every other couple (in general). This is because there are certain iconic images that we expect to come out of a wedding shoot (signing the register, the family group on the church steps, etc), not because we particularly want them but because we don't want to appear different to our neighbours and it is comforting to be the same as everyone else.
Everything that we do is the result of influences outside of ourselves and we have very little control over it (no matter how much we would like to think that we have).

 

[ferny]

It happens way to often to be a coincidence.

What about human nature? Embedded into our DNA.