Jack laments the comments of Kirk Tuck regarding the state of photography today. Maybe "state" is the wrong word. Maybe the word I'm looking for is "value," since "gold standard," refers to monetary value.
I used to read Kirk, back when I had some anxiety about shooting micro four thirds. Kirk would make me feel better, shooting with a little E-PL1, or maybe it was a 2, getting great shots. But he'd often go off on tangents criticizing the apparel of people out and about with cameras. Guy has a real hard-on for people wearing shorts with cargo pockets.
Kirk's a great photographer, but he's a bit of snob and I got tired of those little asides that would just seem to pop in unexpectedly from time to time. Haven't read him in years. The post Jack links to is a good example.
500 word intro consisting of nothing but bitching with "inside baseball" references and obscure cultural allusions.
Not entertaining.
Exhausting.
And the thing is just saturated with old guy angst stank. (Turns up here all the time.)
Should there be a "standard" for "value" in art, especially personal art? I don't think so. But if so, don't standards change over time?
I still love photography, but I'm less passionate about it. Though that's probably the wrong word too, since "passion" is usually connoted with a willingness or requirement to suffer. I'm kind of with the Buddhists on the whole suffering thing, seeking liberation.
But then, I'm not a photographer, I'm just a guy who likes taking pictures. Maybe some people like them. I hope so, but I enjoyed taking them, and that was kind of the point. Isn't it the same with film and prints? For those who enjoy that particular medium. The journey is the reward?
I wouldn't worry too much about what Kirk has to say about anything.
This too shall pass.
As shall we.
(Was that angst?)
Originally posted at Nice Marmot 06:59 Thursday, 1 August 2024