When the going gets tough ...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dudley Hanks, Dec 17, 2009.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Dudley Hanks, Dec 17, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message news:AglWm.57895$PH1.702@edtnps82...

    > Mich gets going...
    >
    > He gets a funny look in his eye, and people just kind of clear out of our way.
    >
    > One trainer we worked with in San Rafael said it was kind of like the parting of the red sea when we got in crowded areas...
    >
    > http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessLarge.jpg (full size)
    >
    > http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessSmall.jpg (quick loading)
    >
    > Comments welcome...
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley


    Scary dog! 8^)
    I had dinner with a fine, friendly pooch yesterday (I'm not generally
    a dog lover, but this 9-year-old-as-of-yesterday bee-yoo-ti-ful,
    friendly yellow lab seeing-eye dog was a gem!). I kept track of his
    location for his owner while he ate (and I got George's food and drinks
    for him at the crowded buffet dinner). "Cringle" got MUCH attention
    from many there, and he appeared to like it, even rolling over onto his
    back for a rub with the harness and handle still on (although normally
    a seeing eye dog should not be petted, etc. while the "gear" is in place,
    since that indicates to the dog that he is in "working" mode - but the
    owner broke the rules for the Christmas dinner...;-).
    --DR
    David Ruether, Dec 17, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:hgdkpk$c4l$...
    >
    > "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    > news:AglWm.57895$PH1.702@edtnps82...
    >
    >> Mich gets going...
    >>
    >> He gets a funny look in his eye, and people just kind of clear out of our
    >> way.
    >>
    >> One trainer we worked with in San Rafael said it was kind of like the
    >> parting of the red sea when we got in crowded areas...
    >>
    >> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessLarge.jpg (full
    >> size)
    >>
    >> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessSmall.jpg (quick
    >> loading)
    >>
    >> Comments welcome...
    >>
    >> Take Care,
    >> Dudley

    >
    > Scary dog! 8^)
    > I had dinner with a fine, friendly pooch yesterday (I'm not generally
    > a dog lover, but this 9-year-old-as-of-yesterday bee-yoo-ti-ful,
    > friendly yellow lab seeing-eye dog was a gem!). I kept track of his
    > location for his owner while he ate (and I got George's food and drinks
    > for him at the crowded buffet dinner). "Cringle" got MUCH attention
    > from many there, and he appeared to like it, even rolling over onto his
    > back for a rub with the harness and handle still on (although normally
    > a seeing eye dog should not be petted, etc. while the "gear" is in place,
    > since that indicates to the dog that he is in "working" mode - but the
    > owner broke the rules for the Christmas dinner...;-).
    > --DR
    >

    Actually, looks are deceiving ... Mich is a real teddy bear; I've never
    had a shepherd who likes to cuddle as much as he does. The pic doesn't do
    his personality justice...

    The "rule" about not petting a guide dog is also a bit deceiving --
    depending largely on what school the dog graduated from.

    AT GDB, how the dog is to be treated varies a bit from dog to dog, resulting
    a bit from how focused the dog is, and what breed it is.

    In the case of shepherds, petting is, of course, discouraged when the dog is
    actually guiding, but there isn't a problem if the handler is standing or
    sitting around, even if the dog is in harness. Hence, I generally allow
    people to give Mich a pet when we're riding on a bus, waiting at bus stops
    etc, or seated in a restaurant.

    When you're working with shepherds, the dog can become protective if it does
    not have contact with others, so getting attention from the public helps the
    dog remain properly socialized.

    And, of course, we wouldn't want Mich to go Cujo, would we?

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 17, 2009
    #3
  4. Dudley Hanks

    NameHere Guest

    On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:44:05 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    >news:hgdkpk$c4l$...
    >>
    >> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >> news:AglWm.57895$PH1.702@edtnps82...
    >>
    >>> Mich gets going...
    >>>
    >>> He gets a funny look in his eye, and people just kind of clear out of our
    >>> way.
    >>>
    >>> One trainer we worked with in San Rafael said it was kind of like the
    >>> parting of the red sea when we got in crowded areas...
    >>>
    >>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessLarge.jpg (full
    >>> size)
    >>>
    >>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessSmall.jpg (quick
    >>> loading)
    >>>
    >>> Comments welcome...
    >>>
    >>> Take Care,
    >>> Dudley

    >>
    >> Scary dog! 8^)
    >> I had dinner with a fine, friendly pooch yesterday (I'm not generally
    >> a dog lover, but this 9-year-old-as-of-yesterday bee-yoo-ti-ful,
    >> friendly yellow lab seeing-eye dog was a gem!). I kept track of his
    >> location for his owner while he ate (and I got George's food and drinks
    >> for him at the crowded buffet dinner). "Cringle" got MUCH attention
    >> from many there, and he appeared to like it, even rolling over onto his
    >> back for a rub with the harness and handle still on (although normally
    >> a seeing eye dog should not be petted, etc. while the "gear" is in place,
    >> since that indicates to the dog that he is in "working" mode - but the
    >> owner broke the rules for the Christmas dinner...;-).
    >> --DR
    >>

    >Actually, looks are deceiving ... Mich is a real teddy bear; I've never
    >had a shepherd who likes to cuddle as much as he does. The pic doesn't do
    >his personality justice...
    >
    >The "rule" about not petting a guide dog is also a bit deceiving --
    >depending largely on what school the dog graduated from.
    >
    >AT GDB, how the dog is to be treated varies a bit from dog to dog, resulting
    >a bit from how focused the dog is, and what breed it is.
    >
    >In the case of shepherds, petting is, of course, discouraged when the dog is
    >actually guiding, but there isn't a problem if the handler is standing or
    >sitting around, even if the dog is in harness. Hence, I generally allow
    >people to give Mich a pet when we're riding on a bus, waiting at bus stops
    >etc, or seated in a restaurant.
    >
    >When you're working with shepherds, the dog can become protective if it does
    >not have contact with others, so getting attention from the public helps the
    >dog remain properly socialized.
    >
    >And, of course, we wouldn't want Mich to go Cujo, would we?
    >


    Only if he'd attack your camera.
    NameHere, Dec 18, 2009
    #4
  5. "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    news:F5uWm.57962$PH1.50659@edtnps82...
    > "David Ruether" <> wrote in message news:hgdkpk$c4l$...
    >> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message news:AglWm.57895$PH1.702@edtnps82...


    >>> Mich gets going...
    >>>
    >>> He gets a funny look in his eye, and people just kind of clear out of our way.
    >>>
    >>> One trainer we worked with in San Rafael said it was kind of like the parting of the red sea when we got in crowded areas...
    >>>
    >>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessLarge.jpg (full size)
    >>>
    >>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessSmall.jpg (quick loading)
    >>>
    >>> Comments welcome...
    >>>
    >>> Take Care,
    >>> Dudley


    >> Scary dog! 8^)
    >> I had dinner with a fine, friendly pooch yesterday (I'm not generally
    >> a dog lover, but this 9-year-old-as-of-yesterday bee-yoo-ti-ful,
    >> friendly yellow lab seeing-eye dog was a gem!). I kept track of his
    >> location for his owner while he ate (and I got George's food and drinks
    >> for him at the crowded buffet dinner). "Cringle" got MUCH attention
    >> from many there, and he appeared to like it, even rolling over onto his
    >> back for a rub with the harness and handle still on (although normally
    >> a seeing eye dog should not be petted, etc. while the "gear" is in place,
    >> since that indicates to the dog that he is in "working" mode - but the
    >> owner broke the rules for the Christmas dinner...;-).
    >> --DR


    > Actually, looks are deceiving ... Mich is a real teddy bear; I've never had a shepherd who likes to cuddle as much as he does.
    > The pic doesn't do his personality justice...


    Ah...! 8^)

    > The "rule" about not petting a guide dog is also a bit deceiving -- depending largely on what school the dog graduated from.
    >
    > AT GDB, how the dog is to be treated varies a bit from dog to dog, resulting a bit from how focused the dog is, and what breed it
    > is.
    >
    > In the case of shepherds, petting is, of course, discouraged when the dog is actually guiding, but there isn't a problem if the
    > handler is standing or sitting around, even if the dog is in harness. Hence, I generally allow people to give Mich a pet when
    > we're riding on a bus, waiting at bus stops etc, or seated in a restaurant.
    >
    > When you're working with shepherds, the dog can become protective if it does not have contact with others, so getting attention
    > from the public helps the dog remain properly socialized.
    >
    > And, of course, we wouldn't want Mich to go Cujo, would we?
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley


    Nope! And, thanks for the info. BTW, I forgot to mention that I
    have a "service" cat of sorts...;-) She normally is not cuddly at all,
    and she is far from being a lap cat - but when I'm having an episode
    of being "out", she often jumps on top of me and stands on my side
    until I start to come out of it. Weird...;-) Others can take a look at
    this small 16-year-old, at -- www.donferrario.com/ruether.
    --DR.
    David Ruether, Dec 18, 2009
    #5
  6. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "NameHere" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:44:05 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    >>news:hgdkpk$c4l$...
    >>>
    >>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:AglWm.57895$PH1.702@edtnps82...
    >>>
    >>>> Mich gets going...
    >>>>
    >>>> He gets a funny look in his eye, and people just kind of clear out of
    >>>> our
    >>>> way.
    >>>>
    >>>> One trainer we worked with in San Rafael said it was kind of like the
    >>>> parting of the red sea when we got in crowded areas...
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessLarge.jpg (full
    >>>> size)
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessSmall.jpg
    >>>> (quick
    >>>> loading)
    >>>>
    >>>> Comments welcome...
    >>>>
    >>>> Take Care,
    >>>> Dudley
    >>>
    >>> Scary dog! 8^)
    >>> I had dinner with a fine, friendly pooch yesterday (I'm not generally
    >>> a dog lover, but this 9-year-old-as-of-yesterday bee-yoo-ti-ful,
    >>> friendly yellow lab seeing-eye dog was a gem!). I kept track of his
    >>> location for his owner while he ate (and I got George's food and drinks
    >>> for him at the crowded buffet dinner). "Cringle" got MUCH attention
    >>> from many there, and he appeared to like it, even rolling over onto his
    >>> back for a rub with the harness and handle still on (although normally
    >>> a seeing eye dog should not be petted, etc. while the "gear" is in
    >>> place,
    >>> since that indicates to the dog that he is in "working" mode - but the
    >>> owner broke the rules for the Christmas dinner...;-).
    >>> --DR
    >>>

    >>Actually, looks are deceiving ... Mich is a real teddy bear; I've never
    >>had a shepherd who likes to cuddle as much as he does. The pic doesn't do
    >>his personality justice...
    >>
    >>The "rule" about not petting a guide dog is also a bit deceiving --
    >>depending largely on what school the dog graduated from.
    >>
    >>AT GDB, how the dog is to be treated varies a bit from dog to dog,
    >>resulting
    >>a bit from how focused the dog is, and what breed it is.
    >>
    >>In the case of shepherds, petting is, of course, discouraged when the dog
    >>is
    >>actually guiding, but there isn't a problem if the handler is standing or
    >>sitting around, even if the dog is in harness. Hence, I generally allow
    >>people to give Mich a pet when we're riding on a bus, waiting at bus stops
    >>etc, or seated in a restaurant.
    >>
    >>When you're working with shepherds, the dog can become protective if it
    >>does
    >>not have contact with others, so getting attention from the public helps
    >>the
    >>dog remain properly socialized.
    >>
    >>And, of course, we wouldn't want Mich to go Cujo, would we?
    >>

    >
    > Only if he'd attack your camera.
    >


    Ah, we're making progress ... gone from semi-valid critiques of pics to
    out-and-out character assasination?

    If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about the image,
    I'll take it as a thumbs up...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 19, 2009
    #6
  7. Ï "Dudley Hanks" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:AglWm.57895$PH1.702@edtnps82...
    > Mich gets going...
    >
    > He gets a funny look in his eye, and people just kind of clear out of our
    > way.
    >
    > One trainer we worked with in San Rafael said it was kind of like the
    > parting of the red sea when we got in crowded areas...
    >
    > http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessLarge.jpg (full
    > size)
    >
    > http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessSmall.jpg (quick
    > loading)
    >
    > Comments welcome...
    >

    I generally am not afraid of dogs or cats, after all both have been our pets
    (when I say "our" I mean mankind) for thousands of years, and it really
    takes effort to be attacked by any pet (and in any case they are not as
    dangerous as wolfs or tigers, that's why they are domesticated).


    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    hordad AT otenet DOT gr
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Dec 19, 2009
    #7
  8. Dudley Hanks

    MikeWhy Guest

    "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    news:MgWWm.58233$PH1.40229@edtnps82...
    > If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about the image,
    > I'll take it as a thumbs up...


    If you really must... It's most of a dog's head with a lolling tongue, half
    framed entering a field of featureless and uninteresting black, with the
    foreground highlights blown to pure white by the harsh flat lighting of an
    improperly set in-axis on camera flash. There is no context for the photo,
    and I call it a photo only for lack of a different word to describe
    something that evidently came out a camera. No evident thought went into the
    creation of the image other than "take a picture of Mich as he walks by!",
    which you *still* managed to not do, as simple a mandate as that was. The
    composition is for shit; the technical merits ended with opening the box the
    camera came in and finding the on switch. If you're looking for art, give a
    child a crayon and instruct her to draw a dog's head with a lolling tongue.
    Whatever she hands back will, guaranteed, be more frameworthy. I can't
    possibly imagine what comments you can be seeking. (In smaller words: thumbs
    down. Try harder.)
    MikeWhy, Dec 20, 2009
    #8
  9. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    news:hgkb6q$pp3$-september.org...
    > "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    > news:MgWWm.58233$PH1.40229@edtnps82...
    >> If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about the image,
    >> I'll take it as a thumbs up...

    >
    > If you really must... It's most of a dog's head with a lolling tongue,
    > half framed entering a field of featureless and uninteresting black, with
    > the foreground highlights blown to pure white by the harsh flat lighting
    > of an improperly set in-axis on camera flash. There is no context for the
    > photo, and I call it a photo only for lack of a different word to describe
    > something that evidently came out a camera. No evident thought went into
    > the creation of the image other than "take a picture of Mich as he walks
    > by!", which you *still* managed to not do, as simple a mandate as that
    > was. The composition is for shit; the technical merits ended with opening
    > the box the camera came in and finding the on switch. If you're looking
    > for art, give a child a crayon and instruct her to draw a dog's head with
    > a lolling tongue. Whatever she hands back will, guaranteed, be more
    > frameworthy. I can't possibly imagine what comments you can be seeking.
    > (In smaller words: thumbs down. Try harder.)
    >
    >


    Well, you're off on a few things...

    First of all, Mich wasn't walking by. He was working in harness, and I took
    the pic with one hand while we were working down a sidewalk. This means I
    had to crouch down beside Mich as we were walking along. Given the speed
    Mich and I travel, it would be tough enough for a sighted person to crouch
    down beside him and take a pic, try it when you have to worry about tripping
    over chunks of snow you can't see, and doing your best to offset the pull of
    a 100 lb. dog straining the harness in your other hand. Try it sometime,
    you might find it tougher than you think.

    Next, I'm not sure what highlights your saying are blown to white, but if
    you're referring to the lighter patches of Mich's fur, well, they're pretty
    much white. He's an odd coloured Shepherd, very bleached in the "tan" areas
    and sable / grey in the "black" saddle area.

    You say there's no context for the photo, but you're ignoring the context:
    a guide dog guiding a blind person. Thus, the black background is highly
    appropriate. It symbolizes the trust the handler places in his dog guide,
    the dark unknown which only the dog can see into.

    Mich's tongue isn't just lolling. It's a habit he has when he's
    concentrating on his duties. In fact, the habit was so pronounced during
    training his lips got quite chapped and we had to give him extra affirmation
    in order to get him to relax. Thus, it is quite proper to include in a
    portrait of him.

    The reason you see nothing is you're mind is set against my work, so you
    can't relate to it. You have decided a blind person can't produce visual
    art, so your mind facilitates your biased attitude.

    In short, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in the mind, as is
    intolerance and jealousy.

    What I wanted to do with this shot is to symbolize the teamwork of a guide
    dog / human partnership.

    The dog handles the visual part of the relationship, hence the dog is what
    is visible. People see the dog, and they appreciate the work that it does,
    but most have a rather simplistic appreciation of the dogs work. They don't
    understand the high degree of stress and strain the dog must cope with in
    order to fulfill his / her part of the partnership. They have a more
    pastoral, stylized image of the typical, angelic guide dog. I wanted my
    portrayal to be somewhat more stark / frank.

    On the other hand, the handler is completely aware of the dog, every subtle
    nuance of the dog's movements, vocalizations and enthusiasm (as conveyed to
    the handler through the harness handle). But, the world outside that
    partnership is completely out of view to the blind person, as is the blind
    person to the general public. The public focuses on the dog and doesn't
    normally place much emphasis on the human half of the team.

    The most visible part of the team is the dog.

    If parts of the dog are somewhat too bright, it is both appropriate to the
    message being conveyed, and is one of the hazards of trying to take a pic on
    the street, using the light from a single, on-camera flash being held at the
    dog's level.

    Once again, the reason you have trouble with my work is that you cannot
    place yourself within the context of my situation. A very thoughtful art
    instructor once told me that a successful artist always leaves a piece of
    himself in every work he produces. I think it's safe to say that there is a
    large chunk of both myself and Mich in this shot.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 20, 2009
    #9
  10. Dudley Hanks

    MikeWhy Guest

    "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    news:v_iXm.56628$Db2.23878@edtnps83...
    >
    > "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    > news:hgkb6q$pp3$-september.org...
    >> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >> news:MgWWm.58233$PH1.40229@edtnps82...
    >>> If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about the image,
    >>> I'll take it as a thumbs up...

    >>
    >> If you really must... It's most of a dog's head with a lolling tongue,
    >> half framed entering a field of featureless and uninteresting black, with
    >> the foreground highlights blown to pure white by the harsh flat lighting
    >> of an improperly set in-axis on camera flash. There is no context for the
    >> photo, and I call it a photo only for lack of a different word to
    >> describe something that evidently came out a camera. No evident thought
    >> went into the creation of the image other than "take a picture of Mich as
    >> he walks by!", which you *still* managed to not do, as simple a mandate
    >> as that was. The composition is for shit; the technical merits ended with
    >> opening the box the camera came in and finding the on switch. If you're
    >> looking for art, give a child a crayon and instruct her to draw a dog's
    >> head with a lolling tongue. Whatever she hands back will, guaranteed, be
    >> more frameworthy. I can't possibly imagine what comments you can be
    >> seeking. (In smaller words: thumbs down. Try harder.)
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Well, you're off on a few things...
    >
    > First of all, Mich wasn't walking by. He was working in harness, and I
    > took the pic with one hand while we were working down a sidewalk. This
    > means I had to crouch down beside Mich as we were walking along. Given
    > the speed Mich and I travel, it would be tough enough for a sighted person
    > to crouch down beside him and take a pic, try it when you have to worry
    > about tripping over chunks of snow you can't see, and doing your best to
    > offset the pull of a 100 lb. dog straining the harness in your other hand.
    > Try it sometime, you might find it tougher than you think.
    >
    > Next, I'm not sure what highlights your saying are blown to white, but if
    > you're referring to the lighter patches of Mich's fur, well, they're
    > pretty much white. He's an odd coloured Shepherd, very bleached in the
    > "tan" areas and sable / grey in the "black" saddle area.
    >
    > You say there's no context for the photo, but you're ignoring the context:
    > a guide dog guiding a blind person. Thus, the black background is highly
    > appropriate. It symbolizes the trust the handler places in his dog guide,
    > the dark unknown which only the dog can see into.
    >
    > Mich's tongue isn't just lolling. It's a habit he has when he's
    > concentrating on his duties. In fact, the habit was so pronounced during
    > training his lips got quite chapped and we had to give him extra
    > affirmation in order to get him to relax. Thus, it is quite proper to
    > include in a portrait of him.
    >
    > The reason you see nothing is you're mind is set against my work, so you
    > can't relate to it. You have decided a blind person can't produce visual
    > art, so your mind facilitates your biased attitude.
    >
    > In short, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in the mind, as
    > is intolerance and jealousy.
    >
    > What I wanted to do with this shot is to symbolize the teamwork of a guide
    > dog / human partnership.
    >
    > The dog handles the visual part of the relationship, hence the dog is what
    > is visible. People see the dog, and they appreciate the work that it
    > does, but most have a rather simplistic appreciation of the dogs work.
    > They don't understand the high degree of stress and strain the dog must
    > cope with in order to fulfill his / her part of the partnership. They
    > have a more pastoral, stylized image of the typical, angelic guide dog. I
    > wanted my portrayal to be somewhat more stark / frank.
    >
    > On the other hand, the handler is completely aware of the dog, every
    > subtle nuance of the dog's movements, vocalizations and enthusiasm (as
    > conveyed to the handler through the harness handle). But, the world
    > outside that partnership is completely out of view to the blind person, as
    > is the blind person to the general public. The public focuses on the dog
    > and doesn't normally place much emphasis on the human half of the team.
    >
    > The most visible part of the team is the dog.
    >
    > If parts of the dog are somewhat too bright, it is both appropriate to the
    > message being conveyed, and is one of the hazards of trying to take a pic
    > on the street, using the light from a single, on-camera flash being held
    > at the dog's level.
    >
    > Once again, the reason you have trouble with my work is that you cannot
    > place yourself within the context of my situation. A very thoughtful art
    > instructor once told me that a successful artist always leaves a piece of
    > himself in every work he produces. I think it's safe to say that there is
    > a large chunk of both myself and Mich in this shot.


    I see. So your photo was an image of your blindness and handicap, not of a
    dog. Again, I fail to see the message you wished to convey. Again, thumbs
    down, and do try harder. You do yourself a misjustice by excusing yourself
    so easily by miscontruing your instructor's remark. Good luck to you.
    MikeWhy, Dec 20, 2009
    #10
  11. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    news:hgkhkt$50n$-september.org...
    >
    > "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    > news:v_iXm.56628$Db2.23878@edtnps83...
    >>
    >> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:hgkb6q$pp3$-september.org...
    >>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:MgWWm.58233$PH1.40229@edtnps82...
    >>>> If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about the
    >>>> image, I'll take it as a thumbs up...
    >>>
    >>> If you really must... It's most of a dog's head with a lolling tongue,
    >>> half framed entering a field of featureless and uninteresting black,
    >>> with the foreground highlights blown to pure white by the harsh flat
    >>> lighting of an improperly set in-axis on camera flash. There is no
    >>> context for the photo, and I call it a photo only for lack of a
    >>> different word to describe something that evidently came out a camera.
    >>> No evident thought went into the creation of the image other than "take
    >>> a picture of Mich as he walks by!", which you *still* managed to not do,
    >>> as simple a mandate as that was. The composition is for shit; the
    >>> technical merits ended with opening the box the camera came in and
    >>> finding the on switch. If you're looking for art, give a child a crayon
    >>> and instruct her to draw a dog's head with a lolling tongue. Whatever
    >>> she hands back will, guaranteed, be more frameworthy. I can't possibly
    >>> imagine what comments you can be seeking. (In smaller words: thumbs
    >>> down. Try harder.)
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Well, you're off on a few things...
    >>
    >> First of all, Mich wasn't walking by. He was working in harness, and I
    >> took the pic with one hand while we were working down a sidewalk. This
    >> means I had to crouch down beside Mich as we were walking along. Given
    >> the speed Mich and I travel, it would be tough enough for a sighted
    >> person to crouch down beside him and take a pic, try it when you have to
    >> worry about tripping over chunks of snow you can't see, and doing your
    >> best to offset the pull of a 100 lb. dog straining the harness in your
    >> other hand. Try it sometime, you might find it tougher than you think.
    >>
    >> Next, I'm not sure what highlights your saying are blown to white, but
    >> if you're referring to the lighter patches of Mich's fur, well, they're
    >> pretty much white. He's an odd coloured Shepherd, very bleached in the
    >> "tan" areas and sable / grey in the "black" saddle area.
    >>
    >> You say there's no context for the photo, but you're ignoring the
    >> context: a guide dog guiding a blind person. Thus, the black background
    >> is highly appropriate. It symbolizes the trust the handler places in his
    >> dog guide, the dark unknown which only the dog can see into.
    >>
    >> Mich's tongue isn't just lolling. It's a habit he has when he's
    >> concentrating on his duties. In fact, the habit was so pronounced during
    >> training his lips got quite chapped and we had to give him extra
    >> affirmation in order to get him to relax. Thus, it is quite proper to
    >> include in a portrait of him.
    >>
    >> The reason you see nothing is you're mind is set against my work, so you
    >> can't relate to it. You have decided a blind person can't produce visual
    >> art, so your mind facilitates your biased attitude.
    >>
    >> In short, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in the mind, as
    >> is intolerance and jealousy.
    >>
    >> What I wanted to do with this shot is to symbolize the teamwork of a
    >> guide dog / human partnership.
    >>
    >> The dog handles the visual part of the relationship, hence the dog is
    >> what is visible. People see the dog, and they appreciate the work that
    >> it does, but most have a rather simplistic appreciation of the dogs work.
    >> They don't understand the high degree of stress and strain the dog must
    >> cope with in order to fulfill his / her part of the partnership. They
    >> have a more pastoral, stylized image of the typical, angelic guide dog.
    >> I wanted my portrayal to be somewhat more stark / frank.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, the handler is completely aware of the dog, every
    >> subtle nuance of the dog's movements, vocalizations and enthusiasm (as
    >> conveyed to the handler through the harness handle). But, the world
    >> outside that partnership is completely out of view to the blind person,
    >> as is the blind person to the general public. The public focuses on the
    >> dog and doesn't normally place much emphasis on the human half of the
    >> team.
    >>
    >> The most visible part of the team is the dog.
    >>
    >> If parts of the dog are somewhat too bright, it is both appropriate to
    >> the message being conveyed, and is one of the hazards of trying to take a
    >> pic on the street, using the light from a single, on-camera flash being
    >> held at the dog's level.
    >>
    >> Once again, the reason you have trouble with my work is that you cannot
    >> place yourself within the context of my situation. A very thoughtful art
    >> instructor once told me that a successful artist always leaves a piece of
    >> himself in every work he produces. I think it's safe to say that there
    >> is a large chunk of both myself and Mich in this shot.

    >
    > I see. So your photo was an image of your blindness and handicap, not of a
    > dog. Again, I fail to see the message you wished to convey. Again, thumbs
    > down, and do try harder. You do yourself a misjustice by excusing yourself
    > so easily by miscontruing your instructor's remark. Good luck to you.
    >
    >


    This is the problem: to you, a photograph is just a photograph, nothing
    more, nothing less.

    You don't have enough creative / abstract thought to appreciate the message,
    just the pixels.

    This is why you don't post; you don't have enough imagination to create,
    nor the cognitive cabability to understand.

    Must be rough...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 20, 2009
    #11
  12. Dudley Hanks

    MikeWhy Guest

    "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    news:X_jXm.56632$Db2.26132@edtnps83...
    >
    > "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    > news:hgkhkt$50n$-september.org...
    >>
    >> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >> news:v_iXm.56628$Db2.23878@edtnps83...
    >>>
    >>> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hgkb6q$pp3$-september.org...
    >>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:MgWWm.58233$PH1.40229@edtnps82...
    >>>>> If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about the
    >>>>> image, I'll take it as a thumbs up...
    >>>>
    >>>> If you really must... It's most of a dog's head with a lolling tongue,
    >>>> half framed entering a field of featureless and uninteresting black,
    >>>> with the foreground highlights blown to pure white by the harsh flat
    >>>> lighting of an improperly set in-axis on camera flash. There is no
    >>>> context for the photo, and I call it a photo only for lack of a
    >>>> different word to describe something that evidently came out a camera.
    >>>> No evident thought went into the creation of the image other than "take
    >>>> a picture of Mich as he walks by!", which you *still* managed to not
    >>>> do, as simple a mandate as that was. The composition is for shit; the
    >>>> technical merits ended with opening the box the camera came in and
    >>>> finding the on switch. If you're looking for art, give a child a crayon
    >>>> and instruct her to draw a dog's head with a lolling tongue. Whatever
    >>>> she hands back will, guaranteed, be more frameworthy. I can't possibly
    >>>> imagine what comments you can be seeking. (In smaller words: thumbs
    >>>> down. Try harder.)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Well, you're off on a few things...
    >>>
    >>> First of all, Mich wasn't walking by. He was working in harness, and I
    >>> took the pic with one hand while we were working down a sidewalk. This
    >>> means I had to crouch down beside Mich as we were walking along. Given
    >>> the speed Mich and I travel, it would be tough enough for a sighted
    >>> person to crouch down beside him and take a pic, try it when you have to
    >>> worry about tripping over chunks of snow you can't see, and doing your
    >>> best to offset the pull of a 100 lb. dog straining the harness in your
    >>> other hand. Try it sometime, you might find it tougher than you think.
    >>>
    >>> Next, I'm not sure what highlights your saying are blown to white, but
    >>> if you're referring to the lighter patches of Mich's fur, well, they're
    >>> pretty much white. He's an odd coloured Shepherd, very bleached in the
    >>> "tan" areas and sable / grey in the "black" saddle area.
    >>>
    >>> You say there's no context for the photo, but you're ignoring the
    >>> context: a guide dog guiding a blind person. Thus, the black background
    >>> is highly appropriate. It symbolizes the trust the handler places in
    >>> his dog guide, the dark unknown which only the dog can see into.
    >>>
    >>> Mich's tongue isn't just lolling. It's a habit he has when he's
    >>> concentrating on his duties. In fact, the habit was so pronounced
    >>> during training his lips got quite chapped and we had to give him extra
    >>> affirmation in order to get him to relax. Thus, it is quite proper to
    >>> include in a portrait of him.
    >>>
    >>> The reason you see nothing is you're mind is set against my work, so you
    >>> can't relate to it. You have decided a blind person can't produce
    >>> visual art, so your mind facilitates your biased attitude.
    >>>
    >>> In short, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in the mind,
    >>> as is intolerance and jealousy.
    >>>
    >>> What I wanted to do with this shot is to symbolize the teamwork of a
    >>> guide dog / human partnership.
    >>>
    >>> The dog handles the visual part of the relationship, hence the dog is
    >>> what is visible. People see the dog, and they appreciate the work that
    >>> it does, but most have a rather simplistic appreciation of the dogs
    >>> work. They don't understand the high degree of stress and strain the dog
    >>> must cope with in order to fulfill his / her part of the partnership.
    >>> They have a more pastoral, stylized image of the typical, angelic guide
    >>> dog. I wanted my portrayal to be somewhat more stark / frank.
    >>>
    >>> On the other hand, the handler is completely aware of the dog, every
    >>> subtle nuance of the dog's movements, vocalizations and enthusiasm (as
    >>> conveyed to the handler through the harness handle). But, the world
    >>> outside that partnership is completely out of view to the blind person,
    >>> as is the blind person to the general public. The public focuses on the
    >>> dog and doesn't normally place much emphasis on the human half of the
    >>> team.
    >>>
    >>> The most visible part of the team is the dog.
    >>>
    >>> If parts of the dog are somewhat too bright, it is both appropriate to
    >>> the message being conveyed, and is one of the hazards of trying to take
    >>> a pic on the street, using the light from a single, on-camera flash
    >>> being held at the dog's level.
    >>>
    >>> Once again, the reason you have trouble with my work is that you cannot
    >>> place yourself within the context of my situation. A very thoughtful
    >>> art instructor once told me that a successful artist always leaves a
    >>> piece of himself in every work he produces. I think it's safe to say
    >>> that there is a large chunk of both myself and Mich in this shot.

    >>
    >> I see. So your photo was an image of your blindness and handicap, not of
    >> a dog. Again, I fail to see the message you wished to convey. Again,
    >> thumbs down, and do try harder. You do yourself a misjustice by excusing
    >> yourself so easily by miscontruing your instructor's remark. Good luck to
    >> you.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > This is the problem: to you, a photograph is just a photograph, nothing
    > more, nothing less.
    >
    > You don't have enough creative / abstract thought to appreciate the
    > message, just the pixels.
    >
    > This is why you don't post; you don't have enough imagination to create,
    > nor the cognitive cabability to understand.
    >
    > Must be rough...


    So, the image is of the surrounding blackness, not the dog's head and
    harness that dominates its foreground. Still, my criticism stands. The fault
    lies not with the viewer who doesn't understand. It lies with the artist's
    inability to project his message. You haven't succeeded yet in defining a
    new visual metaphor for blindness. In fact, you're still very far away.
    MikeWhy, Dec 20, 2009
    #12
  13. "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    news:X_jXm.56632$Db2.26132@edtnps83...
    > "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message

    news:hgkhkt$50n$-september.org...
    >> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message

    news:v_iXm.56628$Db2.23878@edtnps83...
    >>> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message

    news:hgkb6q$pp3$-september.org...
    >>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message

    news:MgWWm.58233$PH1.40229@edtnps82...

    >>>>> If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about the
    >>>>>image, I'll take it as a thumbs up...


    >>>> If you really must... It's most of a dog's head with a lolling
    >>>> tongue, half framed entering a field of featureless and
    >>>> uninteresting black, with the foreground highlights blown to
    >>>> pure white by the harsh flat lighting of an improperly set in-axis
    >>>> on camera flash. There is no context for the photo, and I call
    >>>> it a photo only for lack of a different word to describe
    >>>> something that evidently came out a camera. No evident thought
    >>>> went into the creation of the image other than "take a picture
    >>>> of Mich as he walks by!", which you *still* managed to not do, as
    >>>> simple a mandate as that was. The composition is for shit;
    >>>> the technical merits ended with opening the box the camera came
    >>>> in and finding the on switch. If you're looking for art, give a
    >>>> child a crayon and instruct her to draw a dog's head with a lolling
    >>>> tongue. Whatever she hands back will, guaranteed, be more
    >>>> frameworthy. I can't possibly imagine what comments you can
    >>>> be seeking. (In smaller words: thumbs down. Try harder.)


    >>> Well, you're off on a few things...
    >>>
    >>> First of all, Mich wasn't walking by. He was working in harness,
    >>> and I took the pic with one hand while we were working down a
    >>> sidewalk. This means I had to crouch down beside Mich as we were
    >>> walking along. Given the speed Mich and I travel, it would be
    >>> tough enough for a sighted person to crouch down beside him and
    >>> take a pic, try it when you have to worry about tripping over
    >>> chunks of snow you can't see, and doing your best to offset the pull
    >>> of a 100 lb. dog straining the harness in your other hand.
    >>> Try it sometime, you might find it tougher than you think.
    >>>
    >>> Next, I'm not sure what highlights your saying are blown to white,
    >>> but if you're referring to the lighter patches of Mich's
    >>> fur, well, they're pretty much white. He's an odd coloured Shepherd,
    >>> very bleached in the "tan" areas and sable / grey in the
    >>> "black" saddle area.
    >>>
    >>> You say there's no context for the photo, but you're ignoring the
    >>> context: a guide dog guiding a blind person. Thus, the black
    >>> background is highly appropriate. It symbolizes the trust the handler
    >>> places in his dog guide, the dark unknown which only the
    >>> dog can see into.
    >>>
    >>> Mich's tongue isn't just lolling. It's a habit he has when
    >>> he's concentrating on his duties. In fact, the habit was so
    >>> pronounced during training his lips got quite chapped and we
    >>> had to give him extra affirmation in order to get him to relax.
    >>> Thus, it is quite proper to include in a portrait of him.
    >>>
    >>> The reason you see nothing is you're mind is set against my work,
    >>> so you can't relate to it. You have decided a blind person
    >>> can't produce visual art, so your mind facilitates your biased attitude.
    >>>
    >>> In short, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in
    >>> the mind, as is intolerance and jealousy.
    >>>
    >>> What I wanted to do with this shot is to symbolize the teamwork
    >>> of a guide dog / human partnership.
    >>>
    >>> The dog handles the visual part of the relationship, hence the dog
    >>> is what is visible. People see the dog, and they appreciate
    >>> the work that it does, but most have a rather simplistic appreciation
    >>> of the dogs work. They don't understand the high degree of
    >>> stress and strain the dog must cope with in order to fulfill his / her
    >>> part of the partnership. They have a more pastoral,
    >>> stylized image of the typical, angelic guide dog. I wanted my
    >>> portrayal to be somewhat more stark / frank.
    >>>
    >>> On the other hand, the handler is completely aware of the dog,
    >>> every subtle nuance of the dog's movements, vocalizations and
    >>> enthusiasm (as conveyed to the handler through the harness handle).
    >>> But, the world outside that partnership is completely out
    >>> of view to the blind person, as is the blind person to the general
    >>> public. The public focuses on the dog and doesn't normally
    >>> place much emphasis on the human half of the team.
    >>>
    >>> The most visible part of the team is the dog.
    >>>
    >>> If parts of the dog are somewhat too bright, it is both appropriate
    >>> to the message being conveyed, and is one of the hazards of
    >>> trying to take a pic on the street, using the light from a single,
    >>> on-camera flash being held at the dog's level.
    >>>
    >>> Once again, the reason you have trouble with my work is that
    >>> you cannot place yourself within the context of my situation. A
    >>> very thoughtful art instructor once told me that a successful artist
    >>> always leaves a piece of himself in every work he produces.
    >>> I think it's safe to say that there is a large chunk of both myself
    >>> and Mich in this shot.


    >> I see. So your photo was an image of your blindness and handicap,
    >> not of a dog. Again, I fail to see the message you wished to
    >> convey. Again, thumbs down, and do try harder. You do yourself
    >> a misjustice by excusing yourself so easily by miscontruing your
    >> instructor's remark. Good luck to you.


    > This is the problem: to you, a photograph is just a photograph,
    > nothing more, nothing less.
    >
    > You don't have enough creative / abstract thought to appreciate
    > the message, just the pixels.
    >
    > This is why you don't post; you don't have enough imagination to
    > create, nor the cognitive cabability to understand.
    >
    > Must be rough...
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley


    Thanks for a "neat" post. It reminded me of a lesson I used to teach
    in my photo course at Wells College too long ago...;-) I would show
    a B&W photo of a lemon on a black background with a wide white
    border and ask the class what it was that I was holding in my hand.
    The response from everyone was the expected, "a lemon". Next I had
    students describe in detail as many features of the "lemon" as they
    could, and I would write the 30-35 or so that resulted (sometimes
    with a little prompting...;-) on the blackboard as a list. This list would
    include things like shape, weight, color, thickness, etc. I would then
    bring out a real lemon and ask for a corresponding description of it
    and write that list next to the original list. NOTHING in the two lists
    corresponded, AT ALL! 8^). So then I would go back to the original
    "lemon" and ask what it was. The conclusion was that it was a photograph
    of a lemon - a VERY imperfect copy of a lemon that merely suggested
    characteristics of a lemon, and also that the photograph was not just the
    part that reminded one of a lemon, but the WHOLE image, including the
    "background" (named that although all parts of the photo were essentially
    in the same plane, without true "foreground" or "background"), forming a
    graphic entity...;-) This may be somewhat counter to what you were
    saying about your photograph - but there are several different valid ways
    to consider what a photographic image is, and therefore what sorts of
    information or communication it may contain...
    --DR
    David Ruether, Dec 20, 2009
    #13
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    news:hgkqkq$t3t$-september.org...
    > "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    > news:X_jXm.56632$Db2.26132@edtnps83...
    >>
    >> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:hgkhkt$50n$-september.org...
    >>>
    >>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:v_iXm.56628$Db2.23878@edtnps83...
    >>>>
    >>>> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:hgkb6q$pp3$-september.org...
    >>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:MgWWm.58233$PH1.40229@edtnps82...
    >>>>>> If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about the
    >>>>>> image, I'll take it as a thumbs up...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you really must... It's most of a dog's head with a lolling tongue,
    >>>>> half framed entering a field of featureless and uninteresting black,
    >>>>> with the foreground highlights blown to pure white by the harsh flat
    >>>>> lighting of an improperly set in-axis on camera flash. There is no
    >>>>> context for the photo, and I call it a photo only for lack of a
    >>>>> different word to describe something that evidently came out a camera.
    >>>>> No evident thought went into the creation of the image other than
    >>>>> "take a picture of Mich as he walks by!", which you *still* managed to
    >>>>> not do, as simple a mandate as that was. The composition is for shit;
    >>>>> the technical merits ended with opening the box the camera came in and
    >>>>> finding the on switch. If you're looking for art, give a child a
    >>>>> crayon and instruct her to draw a dog's head with a lolling tongue.
    >>>>> Whatever she hands back will, guaranteed, be more frameworthy. I can't
    >>>>> possibly imagine what comments you can be seeking. (In smaller words:
    >>>>> thumbs down. Try harder.)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, you're off on a few things...
    >>>>
    >>>> First of all, Mich wasn't walking by. He was working in harness, and I
    >>>> took the pic with one hand while we were working down a sidewalk. This
    >>>> means I had to crouch down beside Mich as we were walking along. Given
    >>>> the speed Mich and I travel, it would be tough enough for a sighted
    >>>> person to crouch down beside him and take a pic, try it when you have
    >>>> to worry about tripping over chunks of snow you can't see, and doing
    >>>> your best to offset the pull of a 100 lb. dog straining the harness in
    >>>> your other hand. Try it sometime, you might find it tougher than you
    >>>> think.
    >>>>
    >>>> Next, I'm not sure what highlights your saying are blown to white, but
    >>>> if you're referring to the lighter patches of Mich's fur, well, they're
    >>>> pretty much white. He's an odd coloured Shepherd, very bleached in the
    >>>> "tan" areas and sable / grey in the "black" saddle area.
    >>>>
    >>>> You say there's no context for the photo, but you're ignoring the
    >>>> context: a guide dog guiding a blind person. Thus, the black
    >>>> background is highly appropriate. It symbolizes the trust the handler
    >>>> places in his dog guide, the dark unknown which only the dog can see
    >>>> into.
    >>>>
    >>>> Mich's tongue isn't just lolling. It's a habit he has when he's
    >>>> concentrating on his duties. In fact, the habit was so pronounced
    >>>> during training his lips got quite chapped and we had to give him extra
    >>>> affirmation in order to get him to relax. Thus, it is quite proper to
    >>>> include in a portrait of him.
    >>>>
    >>>> The reason you see nothing is you're mind is set against my work, so
    >>>> you can't relate to it. You have decided a blind person can't produce
    >>>> visual art, so your mind facilitates your biased attitude.
    >>>>
    >>>> In short, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in the mind,
    >>>> as is intolerance and jealousy.
    >>>>
    >>>> What I wanted to do with this shot is to symbolize the teamwork of a
    >>>> guide dog / human partnership.
    >>>>
    >>>> The dog handles the visual part of the relationship, hence the dog is
    >>>> what is visible. People see the dog, and they appreciate the work that
    >>>> it does, but most have a rather simplistic appreciation of the dogs
    >>>> work. They don't understand the high degree of stress and strain the
    >>>> dog must cope with in order to fulfill his / her part of the
    >>>> partnership. They have a more pastoral, stylized image of the typical,
    >>>> angelic guide dog. I wanted my portrayal to be somewhat more stark /
    >>>> frank.
    >>>>
    >>>> On the other hand, the handler is completely aware of the dog, every
    >>>> subtle nuance of the dog's movements, vocalizations and enthusiasm (as
    >>>> conveyed to the handler through the harness handle). But, the world
    >>>> outside that partnership is completely out of view to the blind person,
    >>>> as is the blind person to the general public. The public focuses on
    >>>> the dog and doesn't normally place much emphasis on the human half of
    >>>> the team.
    >>>>
    >>>> The most visible part of the team is the dog.
    >>>>
    >>>> If parts of the dog are somewhat too bright, it is both appropriate to
    >>>> the message being conveyed, and is one of the hazards of trying to take
    >>>> a pic on the street, using the light from a single, on-camera flash
    >>>> being held at the dog's level.
    >>>>
    >>>> Once again, the reason you have trouble with my work is that you cannot
    >>>> place yourself within the context of my situation. A very thoughtful
    >>>> art instructor once told me that a successful artist always leaves a
    >>>> piece of himself in every work he produces. I think it's safe to say
    >>>> that there is a large chunk of both myself and Mich in this shot.
    >>>
    >>> I see. So your photo was an image of your blindness and handicap, not of
    >>> a dog. Again, I fail to see the message you wished to convey. Again,
    >>> thumbs down, and do try harder. You do yourself a misjustice by excusing
    >>> yourself so easily by miscontruing your instructor's remark. Good luck
    >>> to you.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> This is the problem: to you, a photograph is just a photograph, nothing
    >> more, nothing less.
    >>
    >> You don't have enough creative / abstract thought to appreciate the
    >> message, just the pixels.
    >>
    >> This is why you don't post; you don't have enough imagination to create,
    >> nor the cognitive cabability to understand.
    >>
    >> Must be rough...

    >
    > So, the image is of the surrounding blackness, not the dog's head and
    > harness that dominates its foreground. Still, my criticism stands. The
    > fault lies not with the viewer who doesn't understand. It lies with the
    > artist's inability to project his message. You haven't succeeded yet in
    > defining a new visual metaphor for blindness. In fact, you're still very
    > far away.
    >


    Nope, you still haven't gotten it ...

    Firstly, I'm not trying to define a "visual metaphore" for blindness. Since
    blindness is the absence of vision, a visual metaphor is somewhat
    inappropriate. Even closing your eyes or just picturing blackness isn't the
    same, or even a metaphore. The point I keep making, that "Beauty is in the
    mind of the beholder, not the eye" should point you towards my opinion of
    sight: it's a mind thing. Black is the absence of colour, not the absence
    of sight.

    With that in mind, perhaps you can understand I was not focusing on the
    blackness, nor on Mich, in my image. The image is a "composition," meaning
    that there are several components to view, and all must be appreciated in
    order to get the impression I wanted to convey.

    First, is the blackness. It is most prevalent, so it sets the tone. It
    highlights the other components, exaggerating their prominance and
    importance. The darkness is there to illustrate the world the blind pass
    through, and to signify the lack of understanding the general public has of
    the partnership formed between the guide dog and its handler.

    The lack of understanding the public has of this teamwork is something the
    blind dog handler copes with every time he / she takes her dog for a walk
    ....

    "How does your dog know where to go?" "Isn't it great how they can train
    dogs to read traffic signals ... " etc

    These are questions blind handlers answer on a daily basis, all of which
    assume the dog is the one with the brains, and the blind person is just
    along for the ride. After all, it's generally known that if a blind person
    tries to lead another, when the blind tries to lead the blind, disaster
    awaits.

    Hence, the blackness sets the stage by removing the blind person from the
    picture, and by pushing the dog to the foreground, effectively exaggerating
    it's dominance, while simultaneously pulling it out of the public's more
    idealic / pastoral preferred setting.

    Because the sighted viewer has only the dog to look at, minus all of the
    distracting details of the normal day-to-day world, the viewer is forced to
    see the dog's expression, one of concentration, even strain.

    These dog's work hard. They don't just wander down the road pulling some
    blind goof behind. They watch for hazards on the ground, in the air, coming
    up from behind, and especially from nearby roads. They contend with loose
    or stray pets, with wandering children, and all kinds of environmental
    hazards. All the while monitoring the handler for signals, both audible and
    visual.

    In this case, Mich and I were walking down sidewalks that had recently been
    clogged by one of the nastiest blizzards in Alberta's history. At one
    point, Edmonton recorded the second coldest temperature ON THE PLANET. Most
    of the sidewalks had been roughly cleared, but there were still huge chunks
    of snow and ice littering the walkways, and many home-owners had opted to
    use snow melt which isn't the most pet friendly substance known to man.

    As noted in an earlier post, Mich has a tendency to lick his lips when he's
    concentrating, so the image I captured as we approached a roadway along our
    walk, was Mich's expression as he scanned the intersection, looking for the
    most direct way to get through the windrows left by graders, whatever
    traffic was approaching, and any patches of bare ice which could set both of
    us ass over tea kettle, once again, all of this while keeping part of his
    attention on me for signals as to where I wanted to go.

    I know enough about my XSi's flash to know that, when I am shooting within a
    couple of feet from the subject, the flash compensation should be dialed
    down a bit in order to avoid over-exposing the subject. So, when shooting
    this close to the subject I would normally have set the flash compensation a
    stop or two lower than what I opted for for this image. I intentionally
    wanted the parts of the dog closest to the camera to be a bit over exposed,
    in order to bring out that cold winter's night image. I also wanted to
    ensure that the main part of Mich's head would be sufficiently lit to render
    his expression in vivid detail.

    The hardest part of the shot was to eliminate the harness handle from the
    pic. If you look at earlier, similar, pics of Mich while we're working,
    part of the handle usually is visible in the upper left corner. In order to
    enhance the isolation of the dog guide, I didn't want that handle visible,
    so I had to stoop a bit lower and stretch my arm out a bit farther than I
    had on previous attempts, increasing the likelihood of smashing it into an
    obstacle just off the walkway.

    But, I did want to have a part of the harness visible, in order to convey
    that Mich indeed was working. Thus, I wanted the chest strap visible.
    Traditionally, when an animal has worked for humans, they have been
    harnessed, and they accomplish their task by pushing into a chest strap.
    Guide dogs are no different. They don't just walk beside the handler, they
    actually pull into the harness in order to maintain a constant pressure.
    This pressure makes it possible for the dog to communicate with the handler,
    and for the handler to communicate with the dog. During walks such as this
    post-blizzard walk with Mich, communication between the partners is
    incredibly important,

    For those of you who are not blind, and who haven't been lucky enough to
    work with a dog, you will never know just how much teamwork goes on every
    time a dog team goes out for a walk. I kind of feel sorry for you in that
    respect.

    In sum, there is no single element of this picture which is unimportant.

    From the dark background to the cold flash rendering Mich in overly stark
    detail to the bit of reflective taped harness strap visible across his
    chest, all elements have a place.

    And, as is the case in most art galleries where a work is just hung on the
    wall or plopped on a stand with minimal description, it is up to the viewer
    to determine for himself / herself what it means.

    The more the viewer knows about the artist, the better his / her likelihood
    of grasping the artist's intention. If the viewer out-and-out dismisses the
    artist as a crackpot, the message will never be grasped. If the viewer asks
    questions and shows interest, the greater the chance real communication can
    take place between the characters involved.

    Only a message as simplistic as "War is Bad," "God is Love," Kids are Cute"
    will be conveyed without knowledge of the artists life / beliefs. And, even
    in those cases, knowledge of how an artist feels about war might change a
    "War is Bad" image into "AntiWar Propaganda is Overly Simplistic."

    End of rant.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 20, 2009
    #14
  15. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:hglkda$2im$...
    >
    > "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    > news:X_jXm.56632$Db2.26132@edtnps83...
    >> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message

    > news:hgkhkt$50n$-september.org...
    >>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message

    > news:v_iXm.56628$Db2.23878@edtnps83...
    >>>> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message

    > news:hgkb6q$pp3$-september.org...
    >>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message

    > news:MgWWm.58233$PH1.40229@edtnps82...
    >
    >>>>>> If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about the
    >>>>>>image, I'll take it as a thumbs up...

    >
    >>>>> If you really must... It's most of a dog's head with a lolling
    >>>>> tongue, half framed entering a field of featureless and
    >>>>> uninteresting black, with the foreground highlights blown to
    >>>>> pure white by the harsh flat lighting of an improperly set in-axis
    >>>>> on camera flash. There is no context for the photo, and I call
    >>>>> it a photo only for lack of a different word to describe
    >>>>> something that evidently came out a camera. No evident thought
    >>>>> went into the creation of the image other than "take a picture
    >>>>> of Mich as he walks by!", which you *still* managed to not do, as
    >>>>> simple a mandate as that was. The composition is for shit;
    >>>>> the technical merits ended with opening the box the camera came
    >>>>> in and finding the on switch. If you're looking for art, give a
    >>>>> child a crayon and instruct her to draw a dog's head with a lolling
    >>>>> tongue. Whatever she hands back will, guaranteed, be more
    >>>>> frameworthy. I can't possibly imagine what comments you can
    >>>>> be seeking. (In smaller words: thumbs down. Try harder.)

    >
    >>>> Well, you're off on a few things...
    >>>>
    >>>> First of all, Mich wasn't walking by. He was working in harness,
    >>>> and I took the pic with one hand while we were working down a
    >>>> sidewalk. This means I had to crouch down beside Mich as we were
    >>>> walking along. Given the speed Mich and I travel, it would be
    >>>> tough enough for a sighted person to crouch down beside him and
    >>>> take a pic, try it when you have to worry about tripping over
    >>>> chunks of snow you can't see, and doing your best to offset the pull
    >>>> of a 100 lb. dog straining the harness in your other hand.
    >>>> Try it sometime, you might find it tougher than you think.
    >>>>
    >>>> Next, I'm not sure what highlights your saying are blown to white,
    >>>> but if you're referring to the lighter patches of Mich's
    >>>> fur, well, they're pretty much white. He's an odd coloured Shepherd,
    >>>> very bleached in the "tan" areas and sable / grey in the
    >>>> "black" saddle area.
    >>>>
    >>>> You say there's no context for the photo, but you're ignoring the
    >>>> context: a guide dog guiding a blind person. Thus, the black
    >>>> background is highly appropriate. It symbolizes the trust the handler
    >>>> places in his dog guide, the dark unknown which only the
    >>>> dog can see into.
    >>>>
    >>>> Mich's tongue isn't just lolling. It's a habit he has when
    >>>> he's concentrating on his duties. In fact, the habit was so
    >>>> pronounced during training his lips got quite chapped and we
    >>>> had to give him extra affirmation in order to get him to relax.
    >>>> Thus, it is quite proper to include in a portrait of him.
    >>>>
    >>>> The reason you see nothing is you're mind is set against my work,
    >>>> so you can't relate to it. You have decided a blind person
    >>>> can't produce visual art, so your mind facilitates your biased
    >>>> attitude.
    >>>>
    >>>> In short, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in
    >>>> the mind, as is intolerance and jealousy.
    >>>>
    >>>> What I wanted to do with this shot is to symbolize the teamwork
    >>>> of a guide dog / human partnership.
    >>>>
    >>>> The dog handles the visual part of the relationship, hence the dog
    >>>> is what is visible. People see the dog, and they appreciate
    >>>> the work that it does, but most have a rather simplistic appreciation
    >>>> of the dogs work. They don't understand the high degree of
    >>>> stress and strain the dog must cope with in order to fulfill his / her
    >>>> part of the partnership. They have a more pastoral,
    >>>> stylized image of the typical, angelic guide dog. I wanted my
    >>>> portrayal to be somewhat more stark / frank.
    >>>>
    >>>> On the other hand, the handler is completely aware of the dog,
    >>>> every subtle nuance of the dog's movements, vocalizations and
    >>>> enthusiasm (as conveyed to the handler through the harness handle).
    >>>> But, the world outside that partnership is completely out
    >>>> of view to the blind person, as is the blind person to the general
    >>>> public. The public focuses on the dog and doesn't normally
    >>>> place much emphasis on the human half of the team.
    >>>>
    >>>> The most visible part of the team is the dog.
    >>>>
    >>>> If parts of the dog are somewhat too bright, it is both appropriate
    >>>> to the message being conveyed, and is one of the hazards of
    >>>> trying to take a pic on the street, using the light from a single,
    >>>> on-camera flash being held at the dog's level.
    >>>>
    >>>> Once again, the reason you have trouble with my work is that
    >>>> you cannot place yourself within the context of my situation. A
    >>>> very thoughtful art instructor once told me that a successful artist
    >>>> always leaves a piece of himself in every work he produces.
    >>>> I think it's safe to say that there is a large chunk of both myself
    >>>> and Mich in this shot.

    >
    >>> I see. So your photo was an image of your blindness and handicap,
    >>> not of a dog. Again, I fail to see the message you wished to
    >>> convey. Again, thumbs down, and do try harder. You do yourself
    >>> a misjustice by excusing yourself so easily by miscontruing your
    >>> instructor's remark. Good luck to you.

    >
    >> This is the problem: to you, a photograph is just a photograph,
    >> nothing more, nothing less.
    >>
    >> You don't have enough creative / abstract thought to appreciate
    >> the message, just the pixels.
    >>
    >> This is why you don't post; you don't have enough imagination to
    >> create, nor the cognitive cabability to understand.
    >>
    >> Must be rough...
    >>
    >> Take Care,
    >> Dudley

    >
    > Thanks for a "neat" post. It reminded me of a lesson I used to teach
    > in my photo course at Wells College too long ago...;-) I would show
    > a B&W photo of a lemon on a black background with a wide white
    > border and ask the class what it was that I was holding in my hand.
    > The response from everyone was the expected, "a lemon". Next I had
    > students describe in detail as many features of the "lemon" as they
    > could, and I would write the 30-35 or so that resulted (sometimes
    > with a little prompting...;-) on the blackboard as a list. This list would
    > include things like shape, weight, color, thickness, etc. I would then
    > bring out a real lemon and ask for a corresponding description of it
    > and write that list next to the original list. NOTHING in the two lists
    > corresponded, AT ALL! 8^). So then I would go back to the original
    > "lemon" and ask what it was. The conclusion was that it was a photograph
    > of a lemon - a VERY imperfect copy of a lemon that merely suggested
    > characteristics of a lemon, and also that the photograph was not just the
    > part that reminded one of a lemon, but the WHOLE image, including the
    > "background" (named that although all parts of the photo were essentially
    > in the same plane, without true "foreground" or "background"), forming a
    > graphic entity...;-) This may be somewhat counter to what you were
    > saying about your photograph - but there are several different valid ways
    > to consider what a photographic image is, and therefore what sorts of
    > information or communication it may contain...
    > --DR
    >
    >
    >Actually, I think we're pretty much on the same page...


    A photo is just that, a photo, as you said, an imperfect rendition of
    something in the real world.

    What we get from the image depends largely on the viewers interest and
    experience, not the artist's blood, sweat and tears, nor his intention.

    However, the more the viewer knows about the artist, the greater is the
    likelihood the viewer will grasp the artist's message.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 20, 2009
    #15
  16. "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    news:HftXm.58445$PH1.19747@edtnps82...
    > "David Ruether" <> wrote in message news:hglkda$2im$...


    >> Thanks for a "neat" post. It reminded me of a lesson I used to teach
    >> in my photo course at Wells College too long ago...;-) I would show
    >> a B&W photo of a lemon on a black background with a wide white
    >> border and ask the class what it was that I was holding in my hand.
    >> The response from everyone was the expected, "a lemon". Next I had
    >> students describe in detail as many features of the "lemon" as they
    >> could, and I would write the 30-35 or so that resulted (sometimes
    >> with a little prompting...;-) on the blackboard as a list. This list would
    >> include things like shape, weight, color, thickness, etc. I would then
    >> bring out a real lemon and ask for a corresponding description of it
    >> and write that list next to the original list. NOTHING in the two lists
    >> corresponded, AT ALL! 8^). So then I would go back to the original
    >> "lemon" and ask what it was. The conclusion was that it was a photograph
    >> of a lemon - a VERY imperfect copy of a lemon that merely suggested
    >> characteristics of a lemon, and also that the photograph was not just the
    >> part that reminded one of a lemon, but the WHOLE image, including the
    >> "background" (named that although all parts of the photo were essentially
    >> in the same plane, without true "foreground" or "background"), forming a
    >> graphic entity...;-) This may be somewhat counter to what you were
    >> saying about your photograph - but there are several different valid ways
    >> to consider what a photographic image is, and therefore what sorts of
    >> information or communication it may contain...
    >> --DR


    > Actually, I think we're pretty much on the same page...
    >
    > A photo is just that, a photo, as you said, an imperfect rendition of something in the real world.
    >
    >What we get from the image depends largely on the viewers interest and experience, not the artist's blood, sweat and tears, nor his
    >intention.
    >
    > However, the more the viewer knows about the artist, the greater is the likelihood the viewer will grasp the artist's message.
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley


    Yes. I've always had two opposing feelings about this. On one side,
    I prefer not to know anything about the artist/composer/writer so
    that I can see/enjoy/judge a piece on its own merits, with "external"
    influences removed (I used to dislike even the information that titles
    and short descriptions gave on tags with photos in shows - and I never
    had any in my shows). On the other side, having more information
    can "open up" one's awareness of what is being displayed (a recent
    example for me was watching/listening-to excerpts from Daniel
    Barenboim's master classes on some Beethoven piano sonatas, which
    was a revelation for me about how much thought and consideration
    goes into EVERY little bit and its relationship with all others in the
    music to make it "work" as a whole - and this was amazing!). Some
    wonderful British literature courses also had this positive effect - and
    the skillful professor did not dissect the works and "leave the pieces
    quivering on the floor", but instead illuminated the context of the times
    during which they were written, provided interesting and relevant
    particulars about their authors, and also demonstrated the high points
    of the works, all while leaving them still wonderful and undamaged
    by excessive analysis. Whatever works...! 8^)
    --DR
    David Ruether, Dec 20, 2009
    #16
  17. On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:27:54 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    >news:hgkqkq$t3t$-september.org...
    >> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >> news:X_jXm.56632$Db2.26132@edtnps83...
    >>>
    >>> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hgkhkt$50n$-september.org...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:v_iXm.56628$Db2.23878@edtnps83...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hgkb6q$pp3$-september.org...
    >>>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:MgWWm.58233$PH1.40229@edtnps82...
    >>>>>>> If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about the
    >>>>>>> image, I'll take it as a thumbs up...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If you really must... It's most of a dog's head with a lolling tongue,
    >>>>>> half framed entering a field of featureless and uninteresting black,
    >>>>>> with the foreground highlights blown to pure white by the harsh flat
    >>>>>> lighting of an improperly set in-axis on camera flash. There is no
    >>>>>> context for the photo, and I call it a photo only for lack of a
    >>>>>> different word to describe something that evidently came out a camera.
    >>>>>> No evident thought went into the creation of the image other than
    >>>>>> "take a picture of Mich as he walks by!", which you *still* managed to
    >>>>>> not do, as simple a mandate as that was. The composition is for shit;
    >>>>>> the technical merits ended with opening the box the camera came in and
    >>>>>> finding the on switch. If you're looking for art, give a child a
    >>>>>> crayon and instruct her to draw a dog's head with a lolling tongue.
    >>>>>> Whatever she hands back will, guaranteed, be more frameworthy. I can't
    >>>>>> possibly imagine what comments you can be seeking. (In smaller words:
    >>>>>> thumbs down. Try harder.)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, you're off on a few things...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> First of all, Mich wasn't walking by. He was working in harness, and I
    >>>>> took the pic with one hand while we were working down a sidewalk. This
    >>>>> means I had to crouch down beside Mich as we were walking along. Given
    >>>>> the speed Mich and I travel, it would be tough enough for a sighted
    >>>>> person to crouch down beside him and take a pic, try it when you have
    >>>>> to worry about tripping over chunks of snow you can't see, and doing
    >>>>> your best to offset the pull of a 100 lb. dog straining the harness in
    >>>>> your other hand. Try it sometime, you might find it tougher than you
    >>>>> think.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Next, I'm not sure what highlights your saying are blown to white, but
    >>>>> if you're referring to the lighter patches of Mich's fur, well, they're
    >>>>> pretty much white. He's an odd coloured Shepherd, very bleached in the
    >>>>> "tan" areas and sable / grey in the "black" saddle area.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You say there's no context for the photo, but you're ignoring the
    >>>>> context: a guide dog guiding a blind person. Thus, the black
    >>>>> background is highly appropriate. It symbolizes the trust the handler
    >>>>> places in his dog guide, the dark unknown which only the dog can see
    >>>>> into.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Mich's tongue isn't just lolling. It's a habit he has when he's
    >>>>> concentrating on his duties. In fact, the habit was so pronounced
    >>>>> during training his lips got quite chapped and we had to give him extra
    >>>>> affirmation in order to get him to relax. Thus, it is quite proper to
    >>>>> include in a portrait of him.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The reason you see nothing is you're mind is set against my work, so
    >>>>> you can't relate to it. You have decided a blind person can't produce
    >>>>> visual art, so your mind facilitates your biased attitude.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In short, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in the mind,
    >>>>> as is intolerance and jealousy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What I wanted to do with this shot is to symbolize the teamwork of a
    >>>>> guide dog / human partnership.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The dog handles the visual part of the relationship, hence the dog is
    >>>>> what is visible. People see the dog, and they appreciate the work that
    >>>>> it does, but most have a rather simplistic appreciation of the dogs
    >>>>> work. They don't understand the high degree of stress and strain the
    >>>>> dog must cope with in order to fulfill his / her part of the
    >>>>> partnership. They have a more pastoral, stylized image of the typical,
    >>>>> angelic guide dog. I wanted my portrayal to be somewhat more stark /
    >>>>> frank.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On the other hand, the handler is completely aware of the dog, every
    >>>>> subtle nuance of the dog's movements, vocalizations and enthusiasm (as
    >>>>> conveyed to the handler through the harness handle). But, the world
    >>>>> outside that partnership is completely out of view to the blind person,
    >>>>> as is the blind person to the general public. The public focuses on
    >>>>> the dog and doesn't normally place much emphasis on the human half of
    >>>>> the team.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The most visible part of the team is the dog.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If parts of the dog are somewhat too bright, it is both appropriate to
    >>>>> the message being conveyed, and is one of the hazards of trying to take
    >>>>> a pic on the street, using the light from a single, on-camera flash
    >>>>> being held at the dog's level.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Once again, the reason you have trouble with my work is that you cannot
    >>>>> place yourself within the context of my situation. A very thoughtful
    >>>>> art instructor once told me that a successful artist always leaves a
    >>>>> piece of himself in every work he produces. I think it's safe to say
    >>>>> that there is a large chunk of both myself and Mich in this shot.
    >>>>
    >>>> I see. So your photo was an image of your blindness and handicap, not of
    >>>> a dog. Again, I fail to see the message you wished to convey. Again,
    >>>> thumbs down, and do try harder. You do yourself a misjustice by excusing
    >>>> yourself so easily by miscontruing your instructor's remark. Good luck
    >>>> to you.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> This is the problem: to you, a photograph is just a photograph, nothing
    >>> more, nothing less.
    >>>
    >>> You don't have enough creative / abstract thought to appreciate the
    >>> message, just the pixels.
    >>>
    >>> This is why you don't post; you don't have enough imagination to create,
    >>> nor the cognitive cabability to understand.
    >>>
    >>> Must be rough...

    >>
    >> So, the image is of the surrounding blackness, not the dog's head and
    >> harness that dominates its foreground. Still, my criticism stands. The
    >> fault lies not with the viewer who doesn't understand. It lies with the
    >> artist's inability to project his message. You haven't succeeded yet in
    >> defining a new visual metaphor for blindness. In fact, you're still very
    >> far away.
    >>

    >
    >Nope, you still haven't gotten it ...
    >
    >Firstly, I'm not trying to define a "visual metaphore" for blindness. Since
    >blindness is the absence of vision, a visual metaphor is somewhat
    >inappropriate. Even closing your eyes or just picturing blackness isn't the
    >same, or even a metaphore. The point I keep making, that "Beauty is in the
    >mind of the beholder, not the eye" should point you towards my opinion of
    >sight: it's a mind thing. Black is the absence of colour, not the absence
    >of sight.


    <tomes of mindless inane self-justifying crap snipped>

    >Only a message as simplistic as "War is Bad," "God is Love," Kids are Cute"
    >will be conveyed without knowledge of the artists life / beliefs. And, even
    >in those cases, knowledge of how an artist feels about war might change a
    >"War is Bad" image into "AntiWar Propaganda is Overly Simplistic."
    >
    >End of rant.
    >
    >Take Care,
    >Dudley
    >


    If you need THAT many words to try to explain your "art", it clearly isn't
    any kind of art. Your's is just a silly and deeply insecure little-boy's
    desperate attempt for attention, no matter how he can try manipulate others
    into giving it to him.
    Dudley's Crap Gets Deeper, Dec 20, 2009
    #17
  18. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:hglq9m$ast$...
    >
    > "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    > news:HftXm.58445$PH1.19747@edtnps82...
    >> "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    >> news:hglkda$2im$...

    >
    >>> Thanks for a "neat" post. It reminded me of a lesson I used to teach
    >>> in my photo course at Wells College too long ago...;-) I would show
    >>> a B&W photo of a lemon on a black background with a wide white
    >>> border and ask the class what it was that I was holding in my hand.
    >>> The response from everyone was the expected, "a lemon". Next I had
    >>> students describe in detail as many features of the "lemon" as they
    >>> could, and I would write the 30-35 or so that resulted (sometimes
    >>> with a little prompting...;-) on the blackboard as a list. This list
    >>> would
    >>> include things like shape, weight, color, thickness, etc. I would then
    >>> bring out a real lemon and ask for a corresponding description of it
    >>> and write that list next to the original list. NOTHING in the two lists
    >>> corresponded, AT ALL! 8^). So then I would go back to the original
    >>> "lemon" and ask what it was. The conclusion was that it was a photograph
    >>> of a lemon - a VERY imperfect copy of a lemon that merely suggested
    >>> characteristics of a lemon, and also that the photograph was not just
    >>> the
    >>> part that reminded one of a lemon, but the WHOLE image, including the
    >>> "background" (named that although all parts of the photo were
    >>> essentially
    >>> in the same plane, without true "foreground" or "background"), forming a
    >>> graphic entity...;-) This may be somewhat counter to what you were
    >>> saying about your photograph - but there are several different valid
    >>> ways
    >>> to consider what a photographic image is, and therefore what sorts of
    >>> information or communication it may contain...
    >>> --DR

    >
    >> Actually, I think we're pretty much on the same page...
    >>
    >> A photo is just that, a photo, as you said, an imperfect rendition of
    >> something in the real world.
    >>
    >>What we get from the image depends largely on the viewers interest and
    >>experience, not the artist's blood, sweat and tears, nor his intention.
    >>
    >> However, the more the viewer knows about the artist, the greater is the
    >> likelihood the viewer will grasp the artist's message.
    >>
    >> Take Care,
    >> Dudley

    >
    > Yes. I've always had two opposing feelings about this. On one side,
    > I prefer not to know anything about the artist/composer/writer so
    > that I can see/enjoy/judge a piece on its own merits, with "external"
    > influences removed (I used to dislike even the information that titles
    > and short descriptions gave on tags with photos in shows - and I never
    > had any in my shows). On the other side, having more information
    > can "open up" one's awareness of what is being displayed (a recent
    > example for me was watching/listening-to excerpts from Daniel
    > Barenboim's master classes on some Beethoven piano sonatas, which
    > was a revelation for me about how much thought and consideration
    > goes into EVERY little bit and its relationship with all others in the
    > music to make it "work" as a whole - and this was amazing!). Some
    > wonderful British literature courses also had this positive effect - and
    > the skillful professor did not dissect the works and "leave the pieces
    > quivering on the floor", but instead illuminated the context of the times
    > during which they were written, provided interesting and relevant
    > particulars about their authors, and also demonstrated the high points
    > of the works, all while leaving them still wonderful and undamaged
    > by excessive analysis. Whatever works...! 8^)
    > --DR
    >
    >


    Yes, "whatever works."

    The first approach, that of not knowing anything about the artist or his /
    her intentions / goals, allows the viewer to enjoy the piece "on its own
    merits," or as I would contend, according to the viewer's pre-existing
    demands / esthetic standards.

    This is to say that the viewer establishes the parameters within which he /
    she is willing to approve of the characteristics he / she consciously
    considers -- allowing the viewer to become very much attached to the
    piece, or to disregard it entirely.

    The second approach entails a bit more work on the part of the viewer and
    affords no greater reward than the satisfaction of appreciating a bit more
    fully what the artist envisioned as he / she worked on the piece, and to
    possibly have certain less evident details brought into consideration
    throughout the investigation. The drawback to the approach is that it
    perhaps keeps the viewer at a greater emotional distance from the work under
    consideration.

    Some would say that this approach is a more satisfying, even a more mature
    way to view art than simply seeing and sauntering, since it demonstrates a
    greater willingness on the part of the viewer to consider other points of
    view than those he / she subscribes to.

    Personally, most of my appreciation of art has stemmed more from the latter
    school than the former, as I really enjoy learning how others have
    approached conveying their ideas.

    Regardless of the merits of either approach, though, it ultimately comes
    down to the individual and "whatever works" for that person.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 20, 2009
    #18
  19. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Dudley's Crap Gets Deeper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:27:54 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    >>news:hgkqkq$t3t$-september.org...
    >>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:X_jXm.56632$Db2.26132@edtnps83...
    >>>>
    >>>> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:hgkhkt$50n$-september.org...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:v_iXm.56628$Db2.23878@edtnps83...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:hgkb6q$pp3$-september.org...
    >>>>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:MgWWm.58233$PH1.40229@edtnps82...
    >>>>>>>> If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about the
    >>>>>>>> image, I'll take it as a thumbs up...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> If you really must... It's most of a dog's head with a lolling
    >>>>>>> tongue,
    >>>>>>> half framed entering a field of featureless and uninteresting black,
    >>>>>>> with the foreground highlights blown to pure white by the harsh flat
    >>>>>>> lighting of an improperly set in-axis on camera flash. There is no
    >>>>>>> context for the photo, and I call it a photo only for lack of a
    >>>>>>> different word to describe something that evidently came out a
    >>>>>>> camera.
    >>>>>>> No evident thought went into the creation of the image other than
    >>>>>>> "take a picture of Mich as he walks by!", which you *still* managed
    >>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>> not do, as simple a mandate as that was. The composition is for
    >>>>>>> shit;
    >>>>>>> the technical merits ended with opening the box the camera came in
    >>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>> finding the on switch. If you're looking for art, give a child a
    >>>>>>> crayon and instruct her to draw a dog's head with a lolling tongue.
    >>>>>>> Whatever she hands back will, guaranteed, be more frameworthy. I
    >>>>>>> can't
    >>>>>>> possibly imagine what comments you can be seeking. (In smaller
    >>>>>>> words:
    >>>>>>> thumbs down. Try harder.)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Well, you're off on a few things...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> First of all, Mich wasn't walking by. He was working in harness, and
    >>>>>> I
    >>>>>> took the pic with one hand while we were working down a sidewalk.
    >>>>>> This
    >>>>>> means I had to crouch down beside Mich as we were walking along.
    >>>>>> Given
    >>>>>> the speed Mich and I travel, it would be tough enough for a sighted
    >>>>>> person to crouch down beside him and take a pic, try it when you have
    >>>>>> to worry about tripping over chunks of snow you can't see, and doing
    >>>>>> your best to offset the pull of a 100 lb. dog straining the harness
    >>>>>> in
    >>>>>> your other hand. Try it sometime, you might find it tougher than you
    >>>>>> think.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Next, I'm not sure what highlights your saying are blown to white,
    >>>>>> but
    >>>>>> if you're referring to the lighter patches of Mich's fur, well,
    >>>>>> they're
    >>>>>> pretty much white. He's an odd coloured Shepherd, very bleached in
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>> "tan" areas and sable / grey in the "black" saddle area.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You say there's no context for the photo, but you're ignoring the
    >>>>>> context: a guide dog guiding a blind person. Thus, the black
    >>>>>> background is highly appropriate. It symbolizes the trust the
    >>>>>> handler
    >>>>>> places in his dog guide, the dark unknown which only the dog can see
    >>>>>> into.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Mich's tongue isn't just lolling. It's a habit he has when he's
    >>>>>> concentrating on his duties. In fact, the habit was so pronounced
    >>>>>> during training his lips got quite chapped and we had to give him
    >>>>>> extra
    >>>>>> affirmation in order to get him to relax. Thus, it is quite proper
    >>>>>> to
    >>>>>> include in a portrait of him.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The reason you see nothing is you're mind is set against my work, so
    >>>>>> you can't relate to it. You have decided a blind person can't
    >>>>>> produce
    >>>>>> visual art, so your mind facilitates your biased attitude.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> In short, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in the
    >>>>>> mind,
    >>>>>> as is intolerance and jealousy.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> What I wanted to do with this shot is to symbolize the teamwork of a
    >>>>>> guide dog / human partnership.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The dog handles the visual part of the relationship, hence the dog is
    >>>>>> what is visible. People see the dog, and they appreciate the work
    >>>>>> that
    >>>>>> it does, but most have a rather simplistic appreciation of the dogs
    >>>>>> work. They don't understand the high degree of stress and strain the
    >>>>>> dog must cope with in order to fulfill his / her part of the
    >>>>>> partnership. They have a more pastoral, stylized image of the
    >>>>>> typical,
    >>>>>> angelic guide dog. I wanted my portrayal to be somewhat more stark /
    >>>>>> frank.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On the other hand, the handler is completely aware of the dog, every
    >>>>>> subtle nuance of the dog's movements, vocalizations and enthusiasm
    >>>>>> (as
    >>>>>> conveyed to the handler through the harness handle). But, the world
    >>>>>> outside that partnership is completely out of view to the blind
    >>>>>> person,
    >>>>>> as is the blind person to the general public. The public focuses on
    >>>>>> the dog and doesn't normally place much emphasis on the human half of
    >>>>>> the team.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The most visible part of the team is the dog.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If parts of the dog are somewhat too bright, it is both appropriate
    >>>>>> to
    >>>>>> the message being conveyed, and is one of the hazards of trying to
    >>>>>> take
    >>>>>> a pic on the street, using the light from a single, on-camera flash
    >>>>>> being held at the dog's level.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Once again, the reason you have trouble with my work is that you
    >>>>>> cannot
    >>>>>> place yourself within the context of my situation. A very thoughtful
    >>>>>> art instructor once told me that a successful artist always leaves a
    >>>>>> piece of himself in every work he produces. I think it's safe to say
    >>>>>> that there is a large chunk of both myself and Mich in this shot.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I see. So your photo was an image of your blindness and handicap, not
    >>>>> of
    >>>>> a dog. Again, I fail to see the message you wished to convey. Again,
    >>>>> thumbs down, and do try harder. You do yourself a misjustice by
    >>>>> excusing
    >>>>> yourself so easily by miscontruing your instructor's remark. Good luck
    >>>>> to you.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> This is the problem: to you, a photograph is just a photograph,
    >>>> nothing
    >>>> more, nothing less.
    >>>>
    >>>> You don't have enough creative / abstract thought to appreciate the
    >>>> message, just the pixels.
    >>>>
    >>>> This is why you don't post; you don't have enough imagination to
    >>>> create,
    >>>> nor the cognitive cabability to understand.
    >>>>
    >>>> Must be rough...
    >>>
    >>> So, the image is of the surrounding blackness, not the dog's head and
    >>> harness that dominates its foreground. Still, my criticism stands. The
    >>> fault lies not with the viewer who doesn't understand. It lies with the
    >>> artist's inability to project his message. You haven't succeeded yet in
    >>> defining a new visual metaphor for blindness. In fact, you're still very
    >>> far away.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Nope, you still haven't gotten it ...
    >>
    >>Firstly, I'm not trying to define a "visual metaphore" for blindness.
    >>Since
    >>blindness is the absence of vision, a visual metaphor is somewhat
    >>inappropriate. Even closing your eyes or just picturing blackness isn't
    >>the
    >>same, or even a metaphore. The point I keep making, that "Beauty is in
    >>the
    >>mind of the beholder, not the eye" should point you towards my opinion of
    >>sight: it's a mind thing. Black is the absence of colour, not the
    >>absence
    >>of sight.

    >
    > <tomes of mindless inane self-justifying crap snipped>
    >
    >>Only a message as simplistic as "War is Bad," "God is Love," Kids are
    >>Cute"
    >>will be conveyed without knowledge of the artists life / beliefs. And,
    >>even
    >>in those cases, knowledge of how an artist feels about war might change a
    >>"War is Bad" image into "AntiWar Propaganda is Overly Simplistic."
    >>
    >>End of rant.
    >>
    >>Take Care,
    >>Dudley
    >>

    >
    > If you need THAT many words to try to explain your "art", it clearly isn't
    > any kind of art. Your's is just a silly and deeply insecure little-boy's
    > desperate attempt for attention, no matter how he can try manipulate
    > others
    > into giving it to him.
    >


    If you can't appreciate another's efforts, you are simply a self-indulgent,
    narrow-minded wanna-be, who can't perform himself, so he attacks the efforts
    of those he least identifies with.

    You get your own attention by accusing others of seeking it...

    The bottom-line is that you haven't posted because you either can't, or
    because you are too afraid of criticism to step out of your protective,
    isolationist shell. You'd rather be viewed as a narrow-minded fool with
    Natzi tendencies than to perhaps realize your personal fear that others
    won't support your efforts.

    By giving others no choice other than to condemn you, you get what you
    crave, verification of evoking an emotional response in others, even if that
    emotional response is nothing more than disgust...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 20, 2009
    #19
  20. Dudley Hanks

    MikeWhy Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    > news:hgkqkq$t3t$-september.org...
    >> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >> news:X_jXm.56632$Db2.26132@edtnps83...
    >>>
    >>> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hgkhkt$50n$-september.org...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:v_iXm.56628$Db2.23878@edtnps83...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "MikeWhy" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hgkb6q$pp3$-september.org...
    >>>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:MgWWm.58233$PH1.40229@edtnps82...
    >>>>>>> If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about
    >>>>>>> the image, I'll take it as a thumbs up...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If you really must... It's most of a dog's head with a lolling
    >>>>>> tongue, half framed entering a field of featureless and
    >>>>>> uninteresting black, with the foreground highlights blown to
    >>>>>> pure white by the harsh flat lighting of an improperly set
    >>>>>> in-axis on camera flash. There is no context for the photo, and
    >>>>>> I call it a photo only for lack of a different word to describe
    >>>>>> something that evidently came out a camera. No evident thought
    >>>>>> went into the creation of the image other than "take a picture
    >>>>>> of Mich as he walks by!", which you *still* managed to not do,
    >>>>>> as simple a mandate as that was. The composition is for shit;
    >>>>>> the technical merits ended with opening the box the camera came
    >>>>>> in and finding the on switch. If you're looking for art, give a
    >>>>>> child a crayon and instruct her to draw a dog's head with a
    >>>>>> lolling tongue. Whatever she hands back will, guaranteed, be
    >>>>>> more frameworthy. I can't possibly imagine what comments you can
    >>>>>> be seeking. (In smaller words: thumbs down. Try harder.)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, you're off on a few things...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> First of all, Mich wasn't walking by. He was working in harness,
    >>>>> and I took the pic with one hand while we were working down a
    >>>>> sidewalk. This means I had to crouch down beside Mich as we were
    >>>>> walking along. Given the speed Mich and I travel, it would be
    >>>>> tough enough for a sighted person to crouch down beside him and
    >>>>> take a pic, try it when you have to worry about tripping over
    >>>>> chunks of snow you can't see, and doing your best to offset the
    >>>>> pull of a 100 lb. dog straining the harness in your other hand.
    >>>>> Try it sometime, you might find it tougher than you think.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Next, I'm not sure what highlights your saying are blown to white, but
    >>>>> if you're referring to the lighter patches of Mich's
    >>>>> fur, well, they're pretty much white. He's an odd coloured
    >>>>> Shepherd, very bleached in the "tan" areas and sable / grey in
    >>>>> the "black" saddle area. You say there's no context for the photo, but
    >>>>> you're ignoring the
    >>>>> context: a guide dog guiding a blind person. Thus, the black
    >>>>> background is highly appropriate. It symbolizes the trust the
    >>>>> handler places in his dog guide, the dark unknown which only the
    >>>>> dog can see into.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Mich's tongue isn't just lolling. It's a habit he has when he's
    >>>>> concentrating on his duties. In fact, the habit was so pronounced
    >>>>> during training his lips got quite chapped and we had to give him
    >>>>> extra affirmation in order to get him to relax. Thus, it is
    >>>>> quite proper to include in a portrait of him.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The reason you see nothing is you're mind is set against my work,
    >>>>> so you can't relate to it. You have decided a blind person can't
    >>>>> produce visual art, so your mind facilitates your biased attitude.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In short, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in the
    >>>>> mind, as is intolerance and jealousy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What I wanted to do with this shot is to symbolize the teamwork
    >>>>> of a guide dog / human partnership.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The dog handles the visual part of the relationship, hence the
    >>>>> dog is what is visible. People see the dog, and they appreciate
    >>>>> the work that it does, but most have a rather simplistic
    >>>>> appreciation of the dogs work. They don't understand the high
    >>>>> degree of stress and strain the dog must cope with in order to
    >>>>> fulfill his / her part of the partnership. They have a more
    >>>>> pastoral, stylized image of the typical, angelic guide dog. I
    >>>>> wanted my portrayal to be somewhat more stark / frank.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On the other hand, the handler is completely aware of the dog,
    >>>>> every subtle nuance of the dog's movements, vocalizations and
    >>>>> enthusiasm (as conveyed to the handler through the harness
    >>>>> handle). But, the world outside that partnership is completely
    >>>>> out of view to the blind person, as is the blind person to the
    >>>>> general public. The public focuses on the dog and doesn't
    >>>>> normally place much emphasis on the human half of the team.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The most visible part of the team is the dog.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If parts of the dog are somewhat too bright, it is both
    >>>>> appropriate to the message being conveyed, and is one of the
    >>>>> hazards of trying to take a pic on the street, using the light
    >>>>> from a single, on-camera flash being held at the dog's level.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Once again, the reason you have trouble with my work is that you
    >>>>> cannot place yourself within the context of my situation. A very
    >>>>> thoughtful art instructor once told me that a successful artist
    >>>>> always leaves a piece of himself in every work he produces. I
    >>>>> think it's safe to say that there is a large chunk of both myself
    >>>>> and Mich in this shot.
    >>>>
    >>>> I see. So your photo was an image of your blindness and handicap,
    >>>> not of a dog. Again, I fail to see the message you wished to
    >>>> convey. Again, thumbs down, and do try harder. You do yourself a
    >>>> misjustice by excusing yourself so easily by miscontruing your
    >>>> instructor's remark. Good luck to you.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> This is the problem: to you, a photograph is just a photograph,
    >>> nothing more, nothing less.
    >>>
    >>> You don't have enough creative / abstract thought to appreciate the
    >>> message, just the pixels.
    >>>
    >>> This is why you don't post; you don't have enough imagination to
    >>> create, nor the cognitive cabability to understand.
    >>>
    >>> Must be rough...

    >>
    >> So, the image is of the surrounding blackness, not the dog's head and
    >> harness that dominates its foreground. Still, my criticism stands.
    >> The fault lies not with the viewer who doesn't understand. It lies
    >> with the artist's inability to project his message. You haven't
    >> succeeded yet in defining a new visual metaphor for blindness. In
    >> fact, you're still very far away.
    >>

    >
    > Nope, you still haven't gotten it ...
    >
    > Firstly, I'm not trying to define a "visual metaphore" for blindness.
    > Since blindness is the absence of vision, a visual metaphor is
    > somewhat inappropriate. Even closing your eyes or just picturing
    > blackness isn't the same, or even a metaphore. The point I keep
    > making, that "Beauty is in the mind of the beholder, not the eye"
    > should point you towards my opinion of sight: it's a mind thing. Black is
    > the absence of colour, not the absence of sight.
    >
    > With that in mind, perhaps you can understand I was not focusing on
    > the blackness, nor on Mich, in my image. The image is a
    > "composition," meaning that there are several components to view, and
    > all must be appreciated in order to get the impression I wanted to
    > convey.
    > First, is the blackness. It is most prevalent, so it sets the tone. It
    > highlights the other components, exaggerating their prominance and
    > importance. The darkness is there to illustrate the world the blind
    > pass through, and to signify the lack of understanding the general
    > public has of the partnership formed between the guide dog and its
    > handler.
    > The lack of understanding the public has of this teamwork is
    > something the blind dog handler copes with every time he / she takes
    > her dog for a walk ...
    >
    > "How does your dog know where to go?" "Isn't it great how they can
    > train dogs to read traffic signals ... " etc
    >
    > These are questions blind handlers answer on a daily basis, all of
    > which assume the dog is the one with the brains, and the blind person
    > is just along for the ride. After all, it's generally known that if
    > a blind person tries to lead another, when the blind tries to lead
    > the blind, disaster awaits.
    >
    > Hence, the blackness sets the stage by removing the blind person from
    > the picture, and by pushing the dog to the foreground, effectively
    > exaggerating it's dominance, while simultaneously pulling it out of
    > the public's more idealic / pastoral preferred setting.
    >
    > Because the sighted viewer has only the dog to look at, minus all of
    > the distracting details of the normal day-to-day world, the viewer is
    > forced to see the dog's expression, one of concentration, even strain.
    >
    > These dog's work hard. They don't just wander down the road pulling
    > some blind goof behind. They watch for hazards on the ground, in the
    > air, coming up from behind, and especially from nearby roads. They
    > contend with loose or stray pets, with wandering children, and all
    > kinds of environmental hazards. All the while monitoring the handler
    > for signals, both audible and visual.
    >
    > In this case, Mich and I were walking down sidewalks that had
    > recently been clogged by one of the nastiest blizzards in Alberta's
    > history. At one point, Edmonton recorded the second coldest
    > temperature ON THE PLANET. Most of the sidewalks had been roughly
    > cleared, but there were still huge chunks of snow and ice littering
    > the walkways, and many home-owners had opted to use snow melt which
    > isn't the most pet friendly substance known to man.
    > As noted in an earlier post, Mich has a tendency to lick his lips
    > when he's concentrating, so the image I captured as we approached a
    > roadway along our walk, was Mich's expression as he scanned the
    > intersection, looking for the most direct way to get through the
    > windrows left by graders, whatever traffic was approaching, and any
    > patches of bare ice which could set both of us ass over tea kettle,
    > once again, all of this while keeping part of his attention on me for
    > signals as to where I wanted to go.
    > I know enough about my XSi's flash to know that, when I am shooting
    > within a couple of feet from the subject, the flash compensation
    > should be dialed down a bit in order to avoid over-exposing the
    > subject. So, when shooting this close to the subject I would
    > normally have set the flash compensation a stop or two lower than
    > what I opted for for this image. I intentionally wanted the parts of
    > the dog closest to the camera to be a bit over exposed, in order to
    > bring out that cold winter's night image. I also wanted to ensure
    > that the main part of Mich's head would be sufficiently lit to render
    > his expression in vivid detail.
    > The hardest part of the shot was to eliminate the harness handle from
    > the pic. If you look at earlier, similar, pics of Mich while we're
    > working, part of the handle usually is visible in the upper left
    > corner. In order to enhance the isolation of the dog guide, I didn't
    > want that handle visible, so I had to stoop a bit lower and stretch
    > my arm out a bit farther than I had on previous attempts, increasing
    > the likelihood of smashing it into an obstacle just off the walkway.
    >
    > But, I did want to have a part of the harness visible, in order to
    > convey that Mich indeed was working. Thus, I wanted the chest strap
    > visible. Traditionally, when an animal has worked for humans, they
    > have been harnessed, and they accomplish their task by pushing into a
    > chest strap. Guide dogs are no different. They don't just walk
    > beside the handler, they actually pull into the harness in order to
    > maintain a constant pressure. This pressure makes it possible for the
    > dog to communicate with the handler, and for the handler to
    > communicate with the dog. During walks such as this post-blizzard
    > walk with Mich, communication between the partners is incredibly
    > important,
    > For those of you who are not blind, and who haven't been lucky enough
    > to work with a dog, you will never know just how much teamwork goes
    > on every time a dog team goes out for a walk. I kind of feel sorry
    > for you in that respect.
    >
    > In sum, there is no single element of this picture which is
    > unimportant.
    > From the dark background to the cold flash rendering Mich in overly
    > stark detail to the bit of reflective taped harness strap visible
    > across his chest, all elements have a place.
    >
    > And, as is the case in most art galleries where a work is just hung
    > on the wall or plopped on a stand with minimal description, it is up
    > to the viewer to determine for himself / herself what it means.
    >
    > The more the viewer knows about the artist, the better his / her
    > likelihood of grasping the artist's intention. If the viewer
    > out-and-out dismisses the artist as a crackpot, the message will
    > never be grasped. If the viewer asks questions and shows interest,
    > the greater the chance real communication can take place between the
    > characters involved.
    > Only a message as simplistic as "War is Bad," "God is Love," Kids are
    > Cute" will be conveyed without knowledge of the artists life /
    > beliefs. And, even in those cases, knowledge of how an artist feels
    > about war might change a "War is Bad" image into "AntiWar Propaganda
    > is Overly Simplistic."


    I can see what you're after, but it still doesn't work. That image clashes
    with and gets swallowed by the already established and more prevalent visual
    vernacular of "Grandkids run amok with the P&S." Even with that out of the
    way, the black negative field is just empty space. For us, the blankness is
    benign and holds none of the menace that plagues you. You didn't succeed in
    communicating that in the image, only in the text (refutation, actually)
    that followed. Hence, the image doesn't say what you wish it to say. You're
    not there yet.
    MikeWhy, Dec 20, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Um9uIFNtaXRo?=

    Tough Internet Dialup->Wireless->Router->Notebook question

    =?Utf-8?B?Um9uIFNtaXRo?=, Nov 25, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,177
    Ryan Younger
    Nov 26, 2005
  2. Nick Bailey
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,189
    Nick Bailey
    Oct 20, 2003
  3. sPiDEr

    Tough problem!

    sPiDEr, Feb 26, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    907
    Anand Sampath
    Feb 29, 2004
  4. steve
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    924
    RadioNutter
    Aug 6, 2005
  5. J Smith
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    804
    Vista
    Nov 24, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page