Hurrah For The Second Amendment

[alan davus]

Keep 'em coming Chris. I've had a gut full of cats.

[MickH]

I don't feel I have the background to criticise your photographs on their technical or artistic merit, Chris, but I do know that I like the peep-hole you let me/us look through at your town.

I 'get' the 'connecting tissue' argument and enjoy finding these photographs, either when consolidated into a single thread, or when you post them up for individual discussion. To my eyes there's always something interesting... and a wee bit strange.

[Michael Markey]

I too enjoy your pictures as stand alone although I`m aware that they form a larger body of work.
They`ve encouraged me to do something similar on my home patch.

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Because I can't post all 139 of them at once here, and because I'm an SOB. Ask my mom!

I'm sure you're a very nice SOB

The thing I've thought of doing, when I have the time, is a photo essay that asks the question "why not legalise drugs?"

I do know how destructive they are but then, so is alcohol, so are cigarettes, so is too much of {insert object of dislike here}. It would be really interesting to know just how much money could be raised from taxing the things and how much would be saved by not having to police drug dealing.

[Griffin]

Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus

The thing I've thought of doing, when I have the time, is a photo essay that asks the question "why not legalise drugs?"

I do know how destructive they are but then, so is alcohol, so are cigarettes, so is too much of {insert object of dislike here}. It would be really interesting to know just how much money could be raised from taxing the things and how much would be saved by not having to police drug dealing.

I n d e e d !

[Keith]

Considering this is the critiquing forum I'm finding too many of Chris's images are leading into political or 'state of the nation' discussions ... and they are very US centric!

[FrankS]

Indeed. I was attempting to lead the discussion away from the political.

[Sparrow]

... i don't think there is much appetite for the aesthetic discussion

[sig]

But there is nothing to discuss except the message on the sign....

[FrankS]

But this is a photo forum not a politics forum.

Why can't we discuss the image, or is it just all about the message, in which case one could say that the image is successful in delivering the message?

[MickH]

Originally Posted by Keith

Considering this is the critiquing forum I'm finding too many of Chris's images are leading into political or 'state of the nation' discussions ... and they are very US centric!

And the images in themselves are none the worse for that, Keith. I take your point that rather than discussing the photo(s) many contributors are going way off-topic, but that's the way of this place (and others I can think of).

Are you suggesting that Chris is deliberately posting provocative photographs? I doubt that you are, but it's interesting that his images and captions trigger the responses that they do.

[paulfish4570]

chris' photos are doing their job: being provocative.

by the way, how many people were killed in auto accidents in 2010, the latest year for which statistics are available? 33,808.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by MickH

And the images in themselves are none the worse for that, Keith. I take your point that rather than discussing the photo(s) many contributors are going way off-topic, but that's the way of this place (and others I can think of).

Are you suggesting that Chris is deliberately posting provocative photographs? I doubt that you are, but it's interesting that his images and captions trigger the responses that they do.

I'm not suggesting anything ... he does post a lot of provocative images and people seem to react predictably.

I would personally rather be evaluating (or commenting on) an individual image based on it's own asthetics ... if I want a treatise on social or political problems within the US I'll look at his body of work. He provides plenty of opportunity with the links at the bottom of his posts.

[FrankS]

This thread looks to be headed for the off topic forum, where political and social commentary posts can continue.

How about: next post not of photo critique nature, puts it there.

[KoNickon]

It seems to me there are a ton of photographic series done by highly regarded photographers that, if each individual shot were critiqued in isolation, simply wouldn't hold up to artistic scrutiny. So nothing wrong with the picture, in my view -- helps provide a sense of place.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by FrankS

How about: next post not of photo critique nature, puts it there.

I'm allergic to dogs.

[FrankS]

Boy-oh-boy, there's always one!

[Jack Conrad]

I approve of the political message in this photo.

The composition is slightly weighted to the right of center
which I think contributes to its interest as a political message.

[JFH]

Just wanted to say thanks, Chris, for your contributions to this site.. both artistic and philosophical. I follow your postings and find them interesting and provocative. Your "world view" actually tends to reflect much of my own as does your imaging of same. (I just wish I could approach your insight and quality.) Good slice of Midwest Americana if you ask me.

While I'm not sure that a photo forum is the best place for a discussion of firearms rights, if it happens, then it happens. And it does tend to open up some photographers' viewpoints on other things, which as you may agree, might tend to slant the emphasis and presentation of their work as well. So then this gives us all something else to think about too, doesn't it?

Being "of the firearms culture" myself though, I do notice one thing about this and similar discussions.. at least the way they appear to me: One side is basically saying, "Just let me alone to pursue my own likes and dislikes (within law and reason of course)," while the other side at times seems to want to take the position that their position occupies some sort of moral high ground and therefore should / must be applied to everybody else as well. ....

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Do keep up the work and post more. I for one look forward to it..

[robklurfield]

To not veer off-topic, I'm removing all my offending posts from this thread. Hope that helps us regain our focus.

[JFH]

Apologies possibly due here... It looks as though my last post may have pushed things over the top and gotten this thread relegated to "off topic.". Well I disagree... Your presentation of mid America in this and oither threads are both well done and imho very pertinent to the state of photography today. And the sort of folks we are or pretend to be, as well as what we see in others and our surroundings tend to influence the photographs we make. Hardly off topic at all if you ask me.

[JFH]

More on topic this time... Chris, your most recent work has been in color. Like others, I enjoyed your Black and White work very much too. Can you explain why the shift to color? I realize from my own perspective that one or the other often just seems to "fit" better in a particular situation (for me for example, a lot of railroad shots just "want" to be in good old 1950's B & W). Would appreciate your thoughts here.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by FrankS

But this is a photo forum not a politics forum.

Why can't we discuss the image, or is it just all about the message, in which case one could say that the image is successful in delivering the message?

I think there is nothing to be said about the image. It's an image of a sign. It does IMHO not have photographic merit except that it gives the message. That also seems to be the only function it's supposed to fulfil in Chris' series about his community. If we're not supposed to discuss the message, there's really nothing to discuss here.

I'd have preferred it if Chris could have arranged his series here in some kind of, well, series. That would have made it easier to understand that there is a context behind the pictures. As such it looks just like a bunch of images from around where he lives, and some of them by themselves I find frankly boring, but if one knows that they're supposed to go together one can assess them differently.

[Keith]

I think one of the problems I have here was the title of the thread ... 'Hurrah For The Second Amendment!' That was an instant hook for any gun toter viewing the forum main page ... they were bound to click on the thread IMO!

It's a sign ... and without Chris's explanation it tells the average non US resident absolutely nothing about the meaning or intent behind the sign ... and as for the second amendment itself the rest of the world struggles with that concept.