the great schism of photography

removed account4 · Jun 8, 2015

thanks so-crates, you are right ..

all i know is i know nothing

[video=youtube;QnQ_WDtBhvI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnQ_WDtBhvI[/video]

dpurdy · Jun 9, 2015

Y'all are getting a bit over the top analytical. But none of you are technical people right?

Vaughn · Jun 9, 2015

Bill Burk said:
...So yeah, there's not a practical way to use the fact that different sides of the brain process things differently... but I still believe the concept.

Your guess is as good as mine...

Bill Burk · Jun 9, 2015

Vaughn said:
Your guess is as good as mine...

I have to get to the bottom of this... Maybe I'll have to spring for the "top brain - bottom brain" book (the latest take on brain division).

It's a major component of my approach to photography. My system falls apart if I can't say "you do film tests with the left brain" then "take pictures with the right brain" and then "develop the film with the left brain" and then finally "print with the right brain".

Tamara · Jun 9, 2015

dpurdy said:
But none of you are technical people right?

Depends. Which admission would support your argument? :confused:

removed account4 · Jun 9, 2015

Bill Burk said:
I have to get to the bottom of this... Maybe I'll have to spring for the "top brain - bottom brain" book (the latest take on brain division).

It's a major component of my approach to photography. My system falls apart if I can't say "you do film tests with the left brain" then "take pictures with the right brain" and then "develop the film with the left brain" and then finally "print with the right brain".

bill

its much better if you don't think about it, and you just do it

blansky · Jun 9, 2015

Read something last night that they are finding a close correlation in brain function in highly creative people and mental illness. Not sure this is any great stretch because I've written before I never envy the creative geniuses because they are usually one trick ponies and often don't function well in many other areas and situations. Actually kind of close to the savant phenomena.

I think I'd sooner be mildly mediocre and have lots of interests and social connections and other pursuits.

frank · Jun 9, 2015

Genius is a curse as well as a blessing. (Obviously NOT speaking of personal experience. )

dpurdy · Jun 9, 2015

regarding brain function, this is an interesting video about the affect of playing music on areas of the brain.
I pulled it off facebook so maybe it won't work as a link..

https://www.facebook.com/fizikist/videos/vb.113430605372753/757219510993856/?type=2&theater

pdeeh · Jun 9, 2015

blansky; said:
I never envy the creative geniuses because they are usually one trick ponies and often don't function well in many other areas and situations. Actually kind of close to the savant phenomena.
.

Hmm I generally find myself nodding sagely at your posts, but I think this suggestion is pretty wide of the mark, and far too gross a generalisation. I don't doubt that there are examples to support it and can probably think of a few myself, but they are hugely outnumbered surely by counterexamples. The most hackneyed being of course Leonardo

Vaughn · Jun 9, 2015

I read an article where someone put forth the idea of two types of creative geniuses. The type we normally think about -- bright young stars that hit the scene with a splash and seem to burn out quickly, and those who slowly build up intensity over their lifetimes.

The former we tend to notice and celebrate -- then wonder why they burn out, or stop producing new exciting work. The latter we tend to only reconize after they die.

blansky · Jun 9, 2015

pdeeh said:
Hmm I generally find myself nodding sagely at your posts, but I think this suggestion is pretty wide of the mark, and far too gross a generalisation. I don't doubt that there are examples to support it and can probably think of a few myself, but they are hugely outnumbered surely by counterexamples. The nnst hackneyed being of course Leonardo

I'm sure lots of counterexamples. And it's hard to use historical ones because we don't really know too much about their personal lives. Even the Van Gogh issues could have been the mercury poisoning from sticking the brush in his mouth with mercury saturated paint residue still there.

But look at modern artists, who are famous and have had issues with bi-polar problems, substance abuse problems, social issues etc etc.

I think the extremely creative are often people who have issues.

And now to blow this whole thing up and create an uproar. Why are such a high percentage of the top creative people gay. A small subset of perhaps 15-20% of the population.

rthollenbeck · Jun 9, 2015

blansky said:
But look at modern artists, who are famous and have had issues with bi-polar problems, substance abuse problems, social issues etc etc.

Some part of this may be acceptance and categorization.
For instance:
When Roman Pulanski or Jimmy Page have sex with a minor they are repressed artists.
When the homeless guy outside your brownstone hassles you for cash he is a vagrant pan-handling SOB that gets carted to jail and is a repeat offender.

Believe me when I say I'm not bleeding heart, but the world is thick with hypocrites.

MartinCrabtree · Jun 9, 2015

Michael R 1974 said:
Crap. I thought I had a shot with my mental issues, but I'm not gay so I guess it's back to the drawing board.

Where the hell did that come from?:crazy:

blansky · Jun 9, 2015

Michael R 1974 said:
Crap. I thought I had a shot with my mental issues, but I'm not gay so I guess it's back to the drawing board.

There has to be some kind of gay immersion therapy that you can enroll in that can get you back on the right track to fame and fortune.

I wouldn't give up yet.

pdeeh · Jun 9, 2015

blansky said:
But look at modern artists, who are famous and have had issues with bi-polar problems, substance abuse problems, social issues etc etc.
.

Oh that seems to me to be pretty much true ... but it's not the same as being a "one trick pony", which is what I'd read you as saying, and which is what I disagreed with

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 9, 2015

blansky said:
Read something last night that they are finding a close correlation in brain function in highly creative people and mental illness. Not sure this is any great stretch because I've written before I never envy the creative geniuses because they are usually one trick ponies and often don't function well in many other areas and situations. Actually kind of close to the savant phenomena.

I think you're dead on here. This has been my own personal observational experience over decades, and the same anecdotal experience of so many others I have known.

One example, the very best software engineers I have ever known have been almost exclusively members of this club. Focused like a laser to the exclusion of all else in life, but able to see the connections and abstractions that the rest of us routinely miss. And to do it with ease, at times almost as an afterthought, and often honestly and truly surprised when others don't see the same things.

I've always been fascinated by high intelligence in others. These are very, very interesting people with which to interact. They are not like the rest of us, for sure.

Ken

blansky · Jun 9, 2015

rthollenbeck said:
Some part of this may be acceptance and categorization.
For instance:
When Roman Pulanski or Jimmy Page have sex with a minor they are repressed artists.
When the homeless guy outside your brownstone hassles you for cash he is a vagrant pan-handling SOB that gets carted to jail and is a repeat offender.

Believe me when I say I'm not bleeding heart, but the world is thick with hypocrites.

I get your point but your examples my not hit the criteria of creative geniuses, maybe just below, but the fixation on young girls may be cultural and availability in some cases and not really a major aberration.

blansky · Jun 9, 2015

pdeeh said:
Oh that seems to me to be pretty much true ... but it's not the same as being a "one trick pony", which is what I'd read you as saying, and which is what I disagreed with

It may have been somewhat hyperbole. I was sort of meaning, massively good at one thing, but not really so good at anything else. Where as the "normal" population, is sort of good at lots of stuff, and not exceptional really at anything.

A lot of these things are social things as well. Some of these geniuses are often not very good at the people person (social interaction) thing, which is sort of a trait of a "well rounded" person.

pdeeh · Jun 9, 2015

Hehe if poor social skills are marker for artistic genius then apug must be awash with latterday Leonardos

blansky · Jun 9, 2015

pdeeh said:
Hehe if poor social skills are marker for artistic genius then apug must be awash with latterday Leonardos

Not related (not going there), but by your earlier post I get the impression you may have been a Brit rocker fan.

Have you seen this version of Black Dog, Robert Plant and Alison Krauss....some love it or hate it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgzs6pT26KI&feature=em-share_video_user

removed account4 · Jun 9, 2015

pdeeh said:
Hehe if poor social skills are marker for artistic genius then apug must be awash with latterday Leonardos

we have had people here on apug who claimed to be geniuses ...
not sure if they were geniuses though ...

pdeeh · Jun 9, 2015

It wasn't a happy experience over there for you, was it?

removed account4 · Jun 9, 2015

Michael R 1974 said:
Eventually those people always seem to move on to LFF.

LOL HAHAHA sure do, but only if they have a LF camera,
cause the world of photography KNOWS you can only be technical and creative or both
if you have an ENORMOUS LF CAMERA !!
otherwise they are nomadic ... and wander the depths of the interweb

removed account4 · Jun 9, 2015

Michael R 1974 said:
Oh John you're so bad LOLOLOLO

it wouldn't be so sad if a lot of people who used a LF camera didn't think
large cameras are the be all and end all in photography ... after all
non lf cameras have been referred to as "toys"

the great schism of photography

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency