Creative: Question and Answer 51

Permalink 44 Comments

I can’t tell you how excited I am right now. Not about this film which is nothing more than me talking too much, and sharing opinions that are probably mostly useless, but I still enjoyed making this little flick. No, I am excited about what is percolating around in my head. I feel like there is a slight narrowing of the playing field and what is beginning is a convergence of seemingly unrelated things. I guess it boils down to waking up in the morning knowing there is more to do than I can possibly get done, and this I find more than enticing. This feels like why I’m alive. I’m one man with one opinion. Thank you to those who sent questions. Onward. (My time stamps for these questions were deleted, so sorry about not being able to direct you to a specific time.)

1. At some point can you tell us about techniques you’ve used to socially engineer solutions to access-restricted events?

2. It almost looks like you are using an x100V but that is impossible because we all know you don’t like that camera. So, the fact that it looks like you are using one doesn’t really match with reality and thus I would like to be reassured.

3. Do you think people of a given minority, in my case, LGBT, have special qualifications to present and represent that demographic through a photography project?

4. Do you think if Trump wins and stops supporting Ukraine with guns the world’s democracies are in danger?

5. How do you incorporate cycling into your everyday life and choose to take your bike over your car?

6. Can the developer impact sharpness?

7. How do you make a book on an iPad?

8. You explained how you edit your images. So, out of 1000, you ended up with approximately 10. 1%! Does this represent your average? What do you do with the rest? I used to keep everything with my XT2 but now the XT5 I’m unsure.

9. What do you think of Eggleston?

10. Can you explain the dog photograph from Paris? 11. How do you deal with shooting in bad light. (Wedding focus.)

Comments 44

  1. Haven’t commented in a while but just thought I’d say that, as usual, you put into words what usually just rattles around in my head. Thank you for doing that. Any pins in your doll did not come from me.

    I remember when HC-110 first came out and it was love at first sight. I preferred fine grain and never used anything else after that. Fond memories.

    1. Post
  2. Thanks for addressing the Eggleston question. I’ve always been curious about him, before hipsters existed, but I can see your point regarding them. Which makes me think that he’s possibly ‘got away with it.’
    When I say that, I mean Eggleston was from a wealthy family, much like HCB was. He really didn’t need to work and essentially didn’t. If you have time and access to a decent camera, endless rolls of Kodachrome and the money to print with dye transfer…..and you had access to influential peeps, how could you not get recognised. The only fly in this speculative ointment is John Szarkowski. He clearly thought eggleston had the eye for a risky exhibition at MOMA. That aside, if you shoot hundreds of thousands of frames of almost anything, are you not bound by the law of averages to get a certain percentage of ‘Szarkowski’ approved pictures?
    Which brings me back to the hipsters. If you are not motivated by a particular interest, photograph anything and call it ” being at war with the obvious” right? I’m far from convinced Eggleston was a great photographer, but then I’m probably treading the path of the philistine. It’s such an arbitrary question: Is Eggleston a genius or a 1970’s faker? I would argue that once you cross the boundary into ‘art’ there is no point in trying to prove his ability either way. In conclusion, I would probably feel comfortable saying he took some really interesting photographs, made them look super sexy with dye transfer and shot the shit out of anything to find a winner.

    1. Post

      Anytime you add “art” to the equation, all bets are off. That’s about business. I wasn’t aware of his background but I guess he could have been robbing banks for doing other nefarious things but instead he chose to snap. So, in that regard, kudos. The work doesn’t do much for me, but again, his impact is important. And hipsters copy him because that work is available. Long form doc work in a foreign culture is another story.

  3. I know from experience that trying to make a photo book on the ipad doesn’t work, and the Blurb app is very disappointing so far. You can, however, design zines very effectively on the ipad with apps like Notability and PDF Photos and Snapseed. And I’m with you on Eggleston, never found his work interesting.

    1. Post
  4. I have big hands so give me a big hand!! Get it? As a 100V user I tried the grip from JJC and love it. It adds a little heft to the camera which I think I could use. Also, it protects the bottom of the camera from any drops it might take. Two versions ago I dropped mine and the battery door got obliterated. The combination of the grip and the thumb grip gives a very confident purchase.

    1. Post
  5. Camera question – sorry. What are the benefits of the X100V versus e.g a XT-30 (i or ii) with a 23mm lens or 27mm (pancake). Seems to have the same tech so you would expect same quality images and it is a compact package, but at a much lower price. Is the anything the X100V does for you that the XT-30 would not do. I do see that the X100V kills any temptation of considering other lenses but at a premium price.

    1. Indeed, and anyone who wants to get serious about his/her photography comes to realise that one lens does
      not do everything. Of course, it can be made to do everything, but that isn’t the same thing as doing everything well.

      If somebody wants to use it as an alternative to a cellphone camera, fair enough, but avoid portraiture (in the sense of headshots!) unless you want to break off a relationship that’s lost its charm for you.

    2. Post

      It’s WAY beyond a mobile phone camera. This is a very capable machine. But sure, it’s not a portrait camera but for 99% of the photographers I know, this is a valuable tool. Not perfect, just very useful.

    3. The biggest difference is the hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder. The optical is like a rangefinder minus the actual manually-coupled focus patch. You see the scene in real-time. But with the flick of a lever it turns into an EVF. For some people, especially coming from actual rangefinder cameras, it’s an important feature.

    4. Post
    5. @Jarle: It really depends on what kind of photography you like to do, what kind of style you are drawn to. If I remember correctly, Robert Cappa, who was known for saying “If your photographs aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.” shot most of his iconic images using only a 35mm lens. And that was in a war zone (!!!)

      I owned an X100F for a while. My photographic path eventually took me in a different direction but I thoroughly enjoyed using the X100F: it was the right camera at the right time for me. I learned a lot about composition and timing, learned a lot about myself, through that camera. I’m not recommending you get the X100V – but I am recommending you get whatever camera helps you walk your own photographic path.

  6. Would you consider images taken by a photojournalist documenting current events as snapshots?
    Really, truly curious about your view on this.

    1. Post

      heck, take a look at 99% of the photography being hyped, especially on the YT sites. Mostly just snapshots with more time being spent on how to make them look like film than actually talking about the work because, well, mostly snapshots. (and I still like snapshots)

    2. In reply to Rob:Ok, let‘s be more specific: Lynsey Addario in Ukraine photographing the aftermath of a mortar strike on a line of civilians. Snapshot, or not? If not, what is it and what differentiates it from a snapshot?

  7. What’s the difference between “snapshots” and just ordinary street photography in your eyes?

    1. Post
  8. In your eyes, what’s the difference between “snapshot” photography and ordinary street photography?

  9. Professional photographers are just human: they shoot what they can depending on the circumstances.

    An advertising gig might produce a curated image that looks like a combat photograph, but from casting onwards, it’s all designed for greater viewer impact. The folks making the production can do what they like – within budgetary constraints – and perhaps hire Dan to represent the hero, Mr Pitt, or even hire me to be the willing corpse. I could play that well: I used to hold my breath a lot when younger and fond of swimming below the surface. (That’s probably why my hearing is such that I no longer hear the crickets chirp and sing in the field over the hedge. My daughter, currently on holiday with me here where I live, tells me they are as noisy as ever. Is that hearing change a curse or, in this case, a benefit?)

    Reality isn’t an advertising gig: unfortunately, from a certain perspective, tarting up the scene is also frowned upon by editors: one could lose one’s credibility.

    1. Post
    1. Post
  10. Relevant to what, Rodolpho, is the question. I guess every one of us is more or less relevant within the boundaries of our own little world of endeavour.

    As Dan wrote, bring in “art” and all bets should be off, if only because it’s a word that opens the door to fantasies that depend on nothing more valid than emotion, which itself can be switched up or down depending on little more dramatic than what a person had for lunch.

    Exactly the same cloudy validity now permeates politics sexual and, or, social, where you can be arrested for holding on to a once medically certain definition of what it means to be male or female. That’s no longer relevant: facts, as Mr Trump demonstrated, are what he says they are, and the same bullshit rules entire swathes of human existence today. In my day, a spade was a spade, and if you called it a spoon you got your ass kicked. Deservedly so. Thing is, in your country, you are choosing leaders with very little to recommend them. Naturally, much of the rest of the world copies you, and has done the same thing. Was it only coincidence that gave you Trump and the UK Boris Johnson, Russia Putin? Putin’s been around so long that maybe he should be considered the original trendsetter that the others are following; some irony if so.

    The amazing thing about Eggleston is how the photo-historians conveniently forget all about Saul Leiter, Ernst Haas etc. who predate him, and write about the former as some kind of photographic pioneer because he chose to shoot colour. Sorry, it’s only contemporary curator/scribbler lack of depth of information – or situation ethics – that puts him into the pioneer box. But hey, that makes no difference today: the same easy believers swallow that as they do everything else that’s presented as new.

    I kinda think that we don’t need to fear nukes: the end will come from disintegration of society itself, from within; that’s nothing new. We’ve already unleashed the power of the thermometer which we choose to ignore; the crops are failing and the fish turn up dead on the beaches if not in the nets. Skin cancers are on the rise across the globe, but the evidence, the greater implication isn’t pretty so it is ignored. Oh well, it’s only people playing chicken. Who cares?

  11. Good morning from New Jersey!! I was a little surprised by your response to question 3, and wish you had been more specific about the people you refer to many times as “they” and “these people”, rather than depicting them as anonymous oppressors. An editor of a magazine might have different reasons for making arguments about who should do certain research than, for example, a political activist from a minority group, or someone with an opinion they acquired without fully understanding the argument. Yes, stupidity exists out there and well-intentioned arguments get co-opted and corrupted, but there are also many meaningful arguments on this topic expressed coherently (e.g., by social scientists, philosophers, and others). A more nuanced discussion is required, or else homogenising all as BS is fuel for the right-wing, anti-political correctness, culture war arguments (that end up casting the white male as the biggest victim of oppression in contemporary times).

    I agree with you that we have a right to be interested, a right to pursue an interest, and a right to attempt to do research related to that interest. But no right to occupy a community and extract data. I know you know this, too, as I’ve heard you comment on access, trust, learning languages, long-term engagement, etc. Although in this particular rant you seem to be giving the green light to any would-be documentary photographer’s possible sense of entitlement, while dismissing the need for ethical considerations and responsibilities.

    We need to acknowledge the history and legacy of data gathering, knowledge production, and representation of the Other (including via visual methods) as colonial projects. Imposing oneself on a community and extracting data and then wielding the power of knowledge – for which we can gain recognition and fame – is not necessarily an act of selfless photojournalism or innocent/altruistic documentary making. Rather, it can indeed be a (neo-)colonial exercise. It is arrogant (and colonial) for anyone to assume or claim that they are doing a research project about people whose interests they know best, whose cause they can most effectively and most truthfully represent. It is problematic to think that people should simply – unquestioningly – welcome outsiders to visit and then tell their story on their behalf, claiming authority and expertise.

    All researchers need to be aware of power relations and the need to scrutinise their own motivations. How much is selfless, genuine interest in other people, and how much is self-interest, career ambition, and the search for personal recognition and fame? How do we reconcile these conflicts of interest? How do we assess how much we truly know and understand (through a limited documentary project), or to what extent are we constructing knowledge around our personal feelings and preconceptions (or worse, our prejudices)? We cannot just talk about rights to do research without addressing ethical considerations and responsibilities, and the need for reflexivity* in research. This is essential in social science, and worthy of consideration by non-social scientists wanting to do serious research of any kind. Rather than telling critics to “f-off”, acknowledging the contemporary debates and then justifying one’s own ability to do good (and ethical) research in any context will surely only lead to better research.

    *Reflexivity: “A process of self-consciousness where an individual subject or group becomes the object of its own scrutiny” – Oxford reference. See also Kennie and Smillie (“Stories of Culture and Place”, 2017): “For many anthropologists, considering how their own opinions and beliefs influence the way they see the people and activities around them is as important as considering how their participants might view these things. This is called reflexive thinking”. Additionally, how does my identify influence how people respond to me, and shape the knowledge that I am producing in my research?

    Keep well, and enjoy the rest of the summer!

    1. Post

      I think we are miles apart on this but that’s okay. I am confused about a few things. Obviously, doc photography as a career is not in the cards for you. I’m not sure what profession is selfless. I’ve not encountered it yet if it does exist. Heck, yoga teachers and “gurus” are some of the most self absorbed, competitive, career obsessed people I’ve met. So, if photography is your career path you are gonna need to be ready to make it happen. The world won’t wait for self-analysis, nor will editors, art buyers, agents, or your fellow photogs who will gladly take your assignments. I’ve no idea what “occupy a community and extract data” means. Making pictures? How does one occupy a community? If I’m doing an assignment to cover people who live above 20,000 feet in the Andes, people who speak an indigenous language and have almost nothing in common with me, how can I occupy their community? I’m a flea at best. I’m there to tell a story, that’s all. In my synthetic fiber, bag full of tech, return ticket home. Am I supposed to feel bad about this? Not take the assignment and wait for an indigenous photographer to take that same assignment? What if they never get that assignment and in the meantime the culture loses a language, a farming technique, a planting technique?

      What the difference between a “would-be photographer” and a photographer? When I was in photojournalism school I was certainly a would-be photographer. Based on what you say here, I would have never been able to shoot a single story I completed in college. Not one. Three stories in the Latino Community and one in the African American community. I was curious. And I wanted to get good enough to make money to start a career. Did I have prejudices? Sure, still do. Never met a fellow human who doesn’t. Were there ethics involved? Of course. One of the men I followed and photographed in the African American community was vehemently opposed to me being there. He asked that I didn’t include him. Said, “No problem.” The man who owned the church where this man was living was thrilled I was there. He knew that my work might lead to donations, which it did. Eventually, the guy who asked not to be photographed asked me to include him and said he was glad I was there. He then explained how he got there and wanted me to include the story in my written part of the project. As a lesson to others. I have every right to do that story. Just as that same guy has a right to come tell mine.

      We’ve all heard the expression “paralysis by analysis.” Curiosity is the real issue here. If someone has it they are doomed to a life that will infuriate people, at least in the modern world. Again, I just wonder based on your last paragraph how anyone would do anything if they apply such a limited lens to their every movement? “How does my identity influence how people respond to me, and shape the knowledge that I am producing in my research?” Regardless of identity, just BEING somewhere is going to influence the entire situation. I was making snapshots at the beach last night and even THAT was influencing the entire scene. People knew I was making pictures, and more than just phone snaps, by how I was moving around them. I heard them talking about me. I was certainly influencing the scene. So, should I NOT make those images? What if I had been assigned to photographing those same people and they were, I don’t know, Eskimo fishermen?

      Look, most of what I do infuriates someone. Yesterday, I went fishing. I have a friend who called me a “savage” for doing so. I rode my bike on the road and my uncle-in-law is furious because he doesn’t think bikes should be allowed on the roads. I made a comment about box-speed and some tech geek went crazy. I’m about to go to Peru and I’m sure someone will find fault in my trip. I’m in the middle of a long-term project about a subject I know little about, and the project will mostly be in the Latino Community. And I have limited time because I work full time. Should I stop doing all these things? Should I analyze my motivations? Good, because I do but to the extent possible. I’ve seen photographers do some incredibly unethical things. I’ve also seen doctors, lawyers, gurus, athletes, politicians and family members do the same. You can’t avoid being human. You CAN be smart, do your research, learn what you can, ask around, make introductions, and explain yourself. But at some point you just have to go, and in the world we live in now, just know someone is gonna take offense.

    2. Hi Daniel, thanks for this response. Yes, exactly – not sure which profession is selfless, hence the need to acknowledge this. Because some people have convinced themselves that they are purely altruistic to the extent that they can speak for others as if some kind of neutral carrier of the truth (and some people read a travelogue based on three weeks passing through Spain and assume the author is an expert on the Catalan independence movement). The reflexivity I was referring to is not to pretend that one can divorce oneself from self-interest, but to acknowledge that it exists and that it influences one’s work, and to consider how it can be mitigated. This is a basic requirement in anthropological research. Yes, we all have prejudices and preconceived ideas – but the difference between good and not good research can be the way in which we account for our own limitations and our influence on the process of data collection and analysis.

      As for my comment on “occupy[ing] a community and extract[ing] data” – “occupy” is possibly the wrong word, as it has connotations of some kind of military take-over (although it doesn’t when we refer to a bathroom door being locked!). I was simply referring to spending time in a particular space, of actually being in “that” community as opposed to thinking from a distance that I would like to go there and do research. That said, the presence of researchers of any kind can be an imposition in some contexts, and this is something that researchers themselves often do not acknowledge (certainly, I’ve yet to see it acknowledged explicitly by any National Geographic journalist). By “extracting data”, in this case, I mean “taking” pictures.

      To ask if one is supposed to feel bad about their research, assuming that someone is telling them they must feel guilty, is the wrong end of the stick. The question is, can I reflect on my research and NOT feel bad about it? Have I done the right things? Have I not done harm? Am I putting my ambitions above the interests of the people whom I am claiming to speak on behalf of? Is this good research? (Even, is this research “scientific”, or just personal opinion?)

      As for a “would-be photographer”, I’m not sure if you misunderstood me or if I misunderstood your question. I referred specifically to a “would-be documentary photographer” – meaning some of the people who listen to you and are thinking about doing their first documentary project. Regarding your comment, “Based on what you say here, I would have never been able to shoot a single story I completed in college” – according to your interpretation of what I am saying, I would have not been able to do my doctoral research (or an earlier book and other research projects). Hence, the point is not to police what people can and cannot do, but to encourage an ethical process (which is something I believe you adhere to anyway) and reflexivity about the broader meaning of research. Because many of those “would-be documentary photographers” I referred to do not have the training in photojournalism’s ethics that you received, but they did listen to a strong argument (in your video) in support of dismissing all questions of coloniality, privilege, power, positionality, reflexivity, etc.

      Of course, exactly, taking a photo or conducting an interview influences the subjects of research – my point is, beware of those who claim to have captured some objective reality, and who now claim to have a right to speak on behalf of others 100% unproblematically. And back to my original point on policing who can and who cannot do certain research: “Yes, stupidity exists out there and well-intentioned arguments get co-opted and corrupted, but there are also many meaningful arguments on this topic expressed coherently”. In other words, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, because some nuance on this topic is meaningful, I think.

    3. Post

      Sure, there needs to be thought and planning prior to any voyage of substance, but at some point you have to push from shore and start paddling. The internet is rife with “60-second” experts. For the most part, the audience doesn’t seem to care. Maybe it’s the post-truth world we now inhabit. In addition, research is key, but even diligent research sometimes gets blown out of the water within minutes of landing somewhere.
      You use a word here that is a slippery slope, heck, might even call it dangerous. “Reflect.” This used to be a somewhat baked in part of the doc process but it seems like it’s not on the radar for most people these days. Too slow, too much time required. Checking stats, sure, that seems to be mostly what people are after. CTR’s, likes, views, subs, etc. My guess is the situation will only deteriorate.

    4. I don’t know about CTR’s, likes, views, subs, etc. Instead, academic journal editors and reviewers, conference attendees, and one’s work getting cited (favourably) in someone else’s peer-reviewed journal article. To reflect is part of data analysis, in the social sciences at least, if not in documentary making. And getting blown out of the water upon landing somewhere is called being inductive. It might even be inspirational!
      So, why did “reflection” get abandoned by the doc process?

    5. Post

      Academic journals, reviewers, conference attendees, and getting cited in peer-reviewed is for the 1% of the 1%. Social media is for the doped masses. You are gonna lose every single time. Reflection takes times and can also lead to some UGLY realities when you look in the mirror and don’t like what you see.

    6. Well, on second thoughts, maybe you already gave the answer to that question… time… social media etc. But hopefully there are still some who don’t care about speed and clicks and likes and so on? (Rhetorical questions, probably)

    7. Post

      Sadly, fewer and fewer. And this goes for brands, people, politics, etc. Just look at the US Congress. A bunch of corrupt hacks looking for likes and views. Who can out stupid the other.

    8. One percent of the 1% is true. But that does not make it irrelevant (although it has been undermined by anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and the deification of people with strong opinions, an aptitude for confirmation bias, and an aversion to reading the academic/science literature – because there’s a lot out there accessible to the masses; it’s not all locked up in the ivory tower). It could be argued that your channel is for 5% of the 5% (or something like that), because it is more interesting than 95% of the photography on YouTube. What I mean is, exclusivity is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as not intentionally elitist / exclusionary.
      And, by the way, I like my work; I’m not depressed by some reflection on what I do, and looking in the mirror.
      As for politics: Homogenisation of everyone in Congress is unhelpful, I think. It’s how people were tricked by a man who said he would drain the swamp; it’s why hosts and guests on Fox News refer to the “mainstream media” as if they are not part of it, and somehow better than it (when they ARE part of it, and simultaneously they are a wart on the backside of humanity). Not everyone in Congress is the same.
      Monday morning coffee break over.
      Have a great week, Mr Milnor!

    9. Post

      Nobody said it was “irrelevant.” It’s just not as thrilling to most people as social media is. Remember, academic research was not designed around dopamine and the idea of collecting data from those involved. We are talking two very different things. You think academia can compete with Barbie? Not a chance, but that is what you are up against. Show me a member of congress who isn’t part of congress. If they are a part of congress they are playing the game of being in congress. They might be playing to a different beat but it’s still a game. My feeling is that the vast majority were playing the game long before they even got to congress which is, in part, how they got there. Who doesn’t work with lobby groups? Who isn’t taking donations? Again, they are different people, with different ideals and labels around their neck but they are all part of the same system. It’s like working for a newspaper. Whether you like it or not, regardless of your work and views, you are associated with the editorial limits of the paper’s system. It’s why I left, actually.

    10. Hey, Mr Milnor, how are you? My email inbox notified me, and you got me thinking again! If we get back to the origins of this discussion, we would not really be “talking two very different things”. In fact, I think there’s a lot we agree on. But the focus seems to have become obfuscated by a shift to discussing social media. Back to the beginning, in summary: Equating critiques of research as potentially (not necessarily) colonial with “stupidity” arguably dismisses serious debates on these issues and reduces them to a “culture war” talking point. If I understood correctly, you saw my defence of the origins of those debates – and, for example, the importance of reflexivity in research – as unimportant to most people focused on social media (thus “irrelevant” to them, in my interpretation), as everyone is too busy, and the danger of paralysis by analysis, etc.

      But who cares? I’m not very interested in what is or is not thrilling to most people, nor competing with Barbie or anything that is “social media”. We can observe what most people are interested in and motivated by (and how that all plays out over social media), but this discussion was originally on research and documentary projects, not a pragmatic acceptance of social media. If a long-term project has no time for some analysis and reflection, then I am not interested. It might as well be on Instagram. How did I get here in the first place? I don’t listen to your videos from time to time for the lens reviews or the unboxing videos (!), but for the anti-Instagram advocacy for long-term documentary RESEARCH projects – as well as some humour, and some fascinating interviews, all by someone who reflects in journals and actually reads books!

      For the record, I don’t think you should have given up your project on Islam in America; and I don’t think you should not have attempted it in the first place. Primarily what I am arguing is what you have also said (although definitely not in the Q&A 51 video), which is: Recognise potential suspicion from the community being studied; admit that this can affect the project. Beyond that, and where we might disagree, is my argument that a researcher should not claim to have captured some objective truth and that they can now become a spokesperson for that community (that would be both unscientific and, indeed, [neo-]colonial); secondly, let the community (and others who have studied it) be the judges of the project; and thirdly, don’t think that the community should express gratitude for an outsider’s project. Some analysis, yes (and if anyone has time to read and write a journal, they have time for some analysis); paralysis, not recommended / not necessary.

      Anyway, I find the topic (in the video) very interesting, even if I take issue with aspects of it. As I said initially, I am curious about the nebulous group of individuals you referred to and your experience of them (and wonder how they ended up distorting meaningful philosophical debates, turning them from potentially liberatory to simply oppressive). Care to elaborate?

      Finally, if you never read it, may I suggest Edward Said’s “Orientalism”? It’s a standard text in some disciplines and fields, but usually overlooked by photographers.

      Congress – like social media – is perhaps a discussion for another day. Meanwhile, have a good one! Specifically, Frid-day! And the weekend!

    11. Post

      You need me to provide you with names of nebulous people? Seriously? You mean you haven’t been condemned by someone you don’t know who tells you shouldn’t be doing a specific story? This goes back to my origins in photography. It started with the professors at my school, local law enforcement, on to editors, fellow photographers and now it’s the general public. Heck, I get people telling me I can’t INTERVIEW certain people. This happens on such a frequent level I consider it part of the price of admission in doing just about any long-term project. You must be living in a different world from me because the vast majority of people I encounter aren’t looking for philosophical debate. They just don’t want to work that hard. Again, this is an academic discussion and I prefer to just live in the world around me. I find it fairly simple. If you are curious and interested in something, go investigate. Will it be perfect? Probably not. Will someone take issue? Most likely. And if the person doing the documentary feels that they are suddenly an expert on the story, well, that’s enough for most people who seem willing to believe whatever narrative most fits their lifestyle. I can’t control those folks. How many people are basing their knowledge of the atomic bomb on the Oppenheimer movie? Me, I’d say quite a few. Again, is the general public gonna slog through something like American Prometheus? How about the dozen other books that detail everyone else involved? How about the books on all the other tangental aspects of the story? The academics will, surely, but the public, not likely.

      It doesn’t matter to me that you don’t think I should have quit that story, but you don’t know any of the details. There was no story! What I was being fed wasn’t real. It was an artificial narrative, propaganda if you will, and there was no way I was going to get the actual story. And to emphasize this point, I’ve never seen images of what exists in that story. None. Not from anyone. I had long discussions of these things but never got to the point of being allowed to see any of it. But hey, not the first time I didn’t get a story. Nor will it be the last.

    1. I don’t know, but I listened to Rick Beato’s Abba interview and heard a subliminal message telling me to follow the YouTube algorithm.

    2. Post

Leave a comment