If you have to ask what it is, you wouldn't understand. tv
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I think I Need a Break > > I wouldn't like furtwanglography, if I knew what it was. ;) > > > Tom C. > > > > > > >From: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: I think I Need a Break > >Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:01:14 +0100 > > > >Hi, > > > >[...] > > > > > Fine. Not everyone is into one of the types of photography that > > > that I enjoy. I appreciate that. > > > The funny thing is, though, that I can still appreciate > those other > > > types of photography that maybe I'm not so good at. In > fact, maybe > > > I appreciate them more, because I can't do them. I don't > go around > > > trashing people because they take photos that I can't. > > > >I think it is utterly shameful and a disgrace that somebody chose to > >personalise things by picking on Frank and Shel's photographs. Frank > >and Shel have been major factors in stimulating a very broad > range of > >different discussions on this list over the last few years. > > > >There are other people on the list who also receive > unstinting praise, > >and never a word of criticism, for work in a different style > than Frank > >and Shel's. These other people's work is stuff that I > personally think > >is pedestrian at best, and boring at worst. But since it is > not really > >my type of photography there is nothing at all for anyone to > gain by me > >saying anything about it. > > > >This does not mean that there is some kind of peer group > pressure not > >to criticise that stuff, it's just that people may choose not to. If > >somebody receives endless praise for their photos of > furtwangling, but > >I think they're indistinguishable from the rather dismal amateur > >section of 'Furtwangler Monthly', and anyway all pictures of > >furtwangling are the same, this doesn't mean I'm too > peer-pressured or > >scared to speak out against the pretentiousness of > furtwangler photos, > >it just means I can't be bothered, or I realise that other > people find > >furtwangling a subject of infinite fascination, so I let them be. > > > >If you don't like photojournalism, fine. > >If you don't like 'street photography', fine. > >If you don't like pictures of birds on twigs with catchlights, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of motor racing, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of caterpillars, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of Mono Lake, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of kittens, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of children, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of flowers, fine. > >If you don't like landscapes, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of ducks, fine. > >If you don't like furtwanglography, fine. > > > >But there's absolutely no need to personalise your dislike > in the way > >that it's been personalised towards Shel and Frank. If you > don't like > >their style of photography, fine. There are plenty of people > here who > >don't like your style of photography either, but we live with it > >because it's a pluralistic world and we are here - or at least I > >thought we were - to share and enjoy the whole subject. > > > >-- > >Cheers, > > Bob > > > I > > >
