Photography is such a strange sport/form of art. you might ask yourself what type of person gets off on taking photographs? going through life never truly living... except in the past... vicariously... through their photography. i'm not knocking it if that's what your thinking. maybe i'm just secretly jealous in a way... jealous of this medium and it's followers, because i just don't get it, i don't connect with it. it takes a special kind of person maybe, to do it AND appreciate it.

although i don't consider myself a photographer, i've taken my fair share of photos over the years, both masterpieces and junk. i am very pleased to see the digital age at hand, it has eliminated most of the junk.

what is a photographer anyway. what's involved here really?

1. a person has to see or create something worth photographing

2. they have to get the angle and composition in frame how they like

3. choose the light setting they believe is most desirable

4. choose it from a series of twenty or a hundred other almost identical photos

5. enhance it or alter it significantly in photoshop (unless you're a purist/communist)

and then there's the people who enjoy photography. i'm not sure i am one of these
people as i can only look at one photograph for a short period of time before i
hyperventilate and pass out. i can look at a drawing or painting for hours, but a
photograph always leaves me with the feeling i should've been there to really
understand and appreciate the subject matter (as is usually the case with pornagraphy).

there are photographers i thoroughly and mysteriously enjoy in much the same way
i enjoy certain poems or poets but do not generally enjoy poetry. sally mann is one
photographer i like very much. i can't explain why i enjoy her work or why i don't pass out
after looking at it for a very long time, but i can say it has an other-worldly feeling to
it, an ethereal quality that seems to transcend both time and the souls of her human
subjects. if you haven't seen her work i can't recommend it enough.

as for photography's role in society there is a very small part of me which believes that
aside from the obvious recording of history for posterity it is only truly necessary in the
realm of advertising and possibly music album art, and if less people had cameras
not only would the world be a better place but there would be less white people taking
photographs at parties.

speaking of witch, do you ever notice that parties look like they're more fun in photographs?
i admit i don't go to too many parties (actually i'm not invited to very many that often),
but when i have gone they're never as much fun as i imagined. however i've also noticed,
if i look at photos of those same parties later, they always look like a lot more fun, even
if i'm in the photo!

the other day i was on google images vicariously enjoying parties through some party
photos, and i noticed something... all the photos were only of white people, no black
people. and i thought "don't black people go to parties?", "don't black people have
cameras?" when all of a sudden i realized that of course they have cameras and of
course they go to parties, the only difference is they don't take their cameras WITH
them to parties because they don't need proof afterwards they were having fun.
black people just go to their parties and... have fun. REAL FUN. wow. imagine that...
going to a party and having so much fun you FORGET to take photographs. now that's
a party! damn. i guess i've been going to the wrong parties... or maybe i've been
hanging out with the wrong people. i need to meet some new people. black people.