I follow this group for personal reasons that have to do with the process
and techniques of photography. The rare digressions by the group away from
that cause little trouble since they mostly get trashed but this latest
conglomeration is too much.
There is photography as a process and the people who know something about
that who engage in the associated discussions of whether or not a particular
technique does or does not do something anyone cares about. We can lump all
of that together as P.
Then there is the language of criticism as to whether the products of that
process have value to anyone other than the producer of it and the people
who engage in that criticism, Call this C1P. Then there is the theory
developed to provide a structure to the language of criticism and the
theorists who engage in this which can be symbolized as T1C1P. This is
accompanied by a discussion as to whether or not the T1 experts are
qualified for C1 let alone P and a discussion of how unworthy the T1 and C1
people are compared to P.
After that we have the discussion of the criticism of the theory of the
language of criticism for the criticism of the products of photography,
C2T1C1P. That is followed by a theory of the language of criticism for the
criticism of the theory of the language of criticism used for the criticism
of the products of photography, T2C2T1C1P. I cannot bear to even think
about the side discussions here about worthiness.
Let see if I can predict where this is going. How about
TnCn...TjCj....T2C2T1C1P. There is no way to stop this infinite regression
to the left so I have a request: Please limit the discussion to C1 and P
and take the discussion of T1 and of TjCj for j > 1 somewhere else.
Thank you very much.
Eugene Robkin