P3D An artistic disagreement (was: P3D likes and dislikes)

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>From: fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)
>Subject: P3D likes and dislikes

>Duncan, congratulations on openly stating what you like and what you don't
>like.  There is always a risk that someone who happens to like what you
>don't like will feel hurt by your statements, but that should not stop
>people from stating their preferences and discussing them.  

*Preferences* are fine, but a number of people have have been issuing 
pronouncements on what is "good" and what is "bad", for all time and for all 
people, stated as absolutes without any reference to it being their personal
preferences. To attempt to limit the scope of 3D in this way ("bugs are boring -
don't photograph them, garbage is ugly, no point in photographing it" [OK, so 
I'm exaggerating slightly]) is harmful to the field of 3D in general, in my 
opinion. (Exceptions: defective mounting, advice on what to show to a novice.)

>The opposite view is the "politically correct" approach that all forms of 
>stereo are worth pursuing as long as they are stereo.  

Why does it have to be an "opposite"? No intermediate or alternative points
of view are permitted?

"Political correctness", whatever its merits or shortcomings may have been,
has become a rallying cry for those who would discard the boundaries even of
ordinary good manners, and wish to use "the avoidance of political correctness"
as an excuse to disregard the feelings of others for selfish purposes. I would 
assume you didn't mean it that way, but like the use of the swastika for its 
ancient ceremonial purposes, it's likely to be misinterpreted by others.

None of us is so omniscient that we can equate our personal preferences
with what types of 3D are "worth pursuing". Feedback on what types of stereo
others are interested in is worthwhile and helpful, but I reserve the right
to take some stereo photographs on topics for which I might be the only person
in the world who's interested.

>I have elected not to pursue
>certain forms of stereo simply because there are other forms that I enjoy
>more and I have no problem stating what forms are these and why.  

That's fine as far as I'm concerned. But I'd prefer you be cautious about using
your considerable influence to discourage others from exploring other fields.

>There is a lot to be learned from the discussions on what forms of stereo 
>people like (or don't like) and why.

Yes - definitely. But let's stick to "I like this", or "I don't like that
because...", rather than "This is good, that's bad, that's boring...".

.............
>This discussion reminded me of a lady that had bad luck entering club
>stereo competitions (never got any awards).  In talking with her, she
>confessed that her favorite subject for photography is "garbage".
>That got me thinking... Is there a way to photograph garbage and
>end up with an award winning picture?  Maybe, but this is hardly
>a subject inviting good photography.  Nature has given us so many
>colorful and interesting subjects.  Why would any one chose smelly,
>ugly garbage as the subject of their photography?  Now, going back
>to Peter's logic, I am sure that someone from the "refuse industry"
>can tell us many interesting stories, about how garbage is collected,
>processed, stored, etc., all the challenges that humans face in
>disposing garbage, and, somehow, manage to bring these pictures into
>context and perhaps they might even become "interesting", given this
>new information.  But, still, garbage is garbage, and making good
>stereo photography out of garbage is a great challenge.

That reminds me of when I was a young child and lived in community where
junk piles and vacant lots full of ashes and old cinder blocks were considered
great places to play. (That was in the days before parents were so paranoid
about watching their kids every second.) Years later and in another state,
our English teacher lectured on how the imagery of ashes, etc. in "The Great
Gatsby" was supposed to make us feel desolate and depressed - actually, it
made me feel a little homesick. :-)

Much has been said about the benefits of stereo competitions, and I agree
that they appear to have some benefits - I may even enter some photos someday.
But the above quote illustrates what I consider to be one of the harmful 
effects of stereo competitions - a push toward a uniform judgement on what's
worth photographing. Right now, when I take a stereo photograph, it's almost
always something that *I* wanted to photograph, for any of a number of
reasons. It's not always something that I would consider "a good, artistic
stereo photograph", or something that I would expect others to consider that
way. To pressure people to take "good" stereo photographs, and to define "good"
as "likely to win a stereo photo competition", inhibits creativity and runs
the risk of discouraging innovation. 2D photography and the art media are
not constrained in this way, and I don't see any particular reason why 3D
photography should be. (If the topic under discussion were "how to win
stereo competitions" rather than "the kind of stereo photographs you should
take", this objection would not be relevant.)

[Disclaimer: the situation is more complex than it appears. At least one
world war was precipitated by artists. Could war have been averted 
by training them to create more popular works of art? How many other people
might have precipitated wars, but were satisfied by expressing themselves 
in the unconventional art forms they were permitted to pursue?]

John R


------------------------------