Testify!

Al Denelsbeck

Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist and one of the bloggers at Cosmic Variance, gave a talk at The Amaz!ng Meeting 2012 in July, regarding the nature of scientific unknowns and how this translates to our confidence in physical reality. The video of his talk is now available online, and I’m embedding it here, because it’s a damn good one. Atheists and secular humanists don’t have priests, but there are a few people who are solidly inspirational anyway, and Carroll is one of them.

By doing this, I know, I just dragged the page loading times down into the gutter, since YouTube’s thumbnail server sucks royally, but again, it’s worth it. Carroll is remarkably good at distilling things down into very efficient dialogue, and while little of the content is new to any serious skeptic, the approach may well be, and fosters the ability to communicate a different perspective, always a valuable tool. I also have to give him credit for suddenly making it clear to me what Feynman Diagrams illustrate…

He planted a couple of other ideas that will appear in at least one forthcoming blog post, as well, specifically an expansion of the whole ‘meaning‘ question. And the ‘universe is made of stories’ concept deserves some examination too. Wouldn’t it be great if even one television program could elicit this kind of contemplation?

I will also admit to some jealousy that he has more titles is his list of favorite blog posts, I think, than I have throughout this site…

Intolerance will not be tolerated!

Al Denelsbeck

Walkabout podcast – Intolerance will not be tolerated!

Among a collection of concepts that are poorly understood and almost completely mismanaged in our current culture sits intolerance. Ask anyone if intolerance is good or bad, and I bet you’ll garner ‘bad’ as an answer the majority of the time. This is an indication that too many people respond to cultural reactions and not at all to what the word even means. It’s like asking if restrictions are good or bad. But the thinking person will ask, “Intolerance of what?”

Let me get this out of the way right from the start: intolerance is not only not bad, but it is something that we should be using routinely as a crucial part of our society. We should have a distinct intolerance towards such things as child abuse, racial and sexual discrimination, violence, and so on. “Ah, well, sure, when you put it that way, but you know, I meant something else by ‘intolerance’…”

No. There is no secondary meaning of the word. Intolerance is a modifier; it must apply to a particular subject, and it is the subject that qualifies whether or not the attitude can be considered good or bad. But let’s be real; that’s going to be pretty hard for people to cope with, since there will be arguments of opinion over the subjects, and someone will end up making a list of what it is okay to be intolerant of. Instead, what should be applied is not the attitude of intolerance itself, but why. What exactly are the criteria that leads to the conclusion of something being not allowable in our society?

That’s where we need to be putting our emphasis, and directing our attention. When it comes down to it, determining such criteria puts us on the road to a distinct moral structure. Why are we intolerant of sexual discrimination? Well, because it puts half of our population at a disadvantage, without any specific reason or benefit. Okay, that wasn’t hard – we weighed the good and the bad points, so there’s a great start.

In fact, the only things that really need to be added to this are firm definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ Both of these really only need to be defined in terms of benefit or harm to others, since that’s what society is. If I have to rely on other people around me, and they have to rely on me, then the single most important aspect is that we are actively cooperative, and inclined to remain so. That’s all. ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ only need revolve around what affects this simple dynamic.

Did you want your old moldy scripture to be considered good? Too bad – so do lots of other people, and their scripture contradicts yours, so the only way for that to work is to arbitrarily decide which one to follow and ignore the rest. That’s been done before (read a history book) – it doesn’t work. Those who have their own scripture that doesn’t agree with yours now have no reason to cooperate with you, or any reason to have you around. Eventually, what results is ‘moral’ law by strength and numbers – not exactly a useful guideline, nor a particularly lasting culture. Especially when the standard of a self-interested morality means that dividing lines can be drawn eternally. Not just splinters of christianity like protestantism, catholicism, mormons, jehovahs; or judaism like hasidic and reformed; or islam like sunni and shia; all three of these major religions are splinters of the same abrahamic origins. Yeah, building society, one wall at a time…

And that’s the difference between a society and a personal ideology. Society must maintain a certain common agreement in goals, while personal ideology really shouldn’t extend beyond one’s own mind. Yes, I can say that comfortably and confidently, because I have eyes and can see what works. Do we have roads, hospitals, grocery stores, an electric grid, and similar infrastructure because of holy books? No, we have them because we deem them necessary. Humans have basic needs, and regardless of how anyone prefers to argue that these came about, they remain the same. Morality can only be functional if it revolves around this commonality.

This is where those that discuss the objectivity or subjectivity of morality lose the thread. There are no refined definitions that need to be hashed out, no rules that need apply to every imagined situation, and especially, no reason to give philosophers any air time at all. Who benefits, and who doesn’t? That’s all that needs to be considered.

And thus, we get back to intolerance. Many people seem to think they deserve special consideration, respect for their viewpoint – and more often than not, this would require less respect for someone else without that viewpoint. Why? Because someone is repeating the beliefs of their parents? Yeah, fantastic contribution. We need to be completely comfortable with calling this utter bullshit. Respect is earned only by benefit, and morality does not work with selectivity or privilege. Nor does personal choice have the faintest connection to social structure, so we need to recognize when this card is played. We are immersed in a culture of false equivalency, where far too many people believe that every opinion deserves to be both heard and respected; this is not only untrue, it makes no sense. Someone should always have to defend why anyone else should give a rat’s ass. And we shouldn’t have the slightest inclination to tolerate anything less.

Because, when it comes down to it, being tolerant of special privilege or status or selfish opinion, in the face of how negatively this may affect others, basically shits on others. Too many people seem to confuse their ability to have an opinion with some right to be free from criticism of it; such a thing would deny someone else’s right to have an opinion, at least if it’s in contradiction, so obviously there’s a flaw in this reasoning. Without open disagreement, we cannot find better options, make improvements, or even progress at all. The very concept of better relies on finding fault in the first place.

The second part of this, however, is to communicate it effectively. Again, it’s not the intolerance that is the key function, but the underlying criteria. It may take a lot more effort to explain why racial bigotry is a pointless pursuit and indicative of insecurity, but without it, all that appears to be visible is competing opinions or prejudice. Note that bigotry itself is defined as obstinate and/or intolerant devotion to one’s prejudice, and we tend to believe that prejudice is always bad. But this isn’t true; one can be prejudiced against products from a particular manufacturer, or even a style of music. It’s an integral part of our decision-making process, and pretty much defines making choices – we may be prejudiced for very good reasons. It’s the reasons that count, and what must be prominent in any discussion. Plus, such discussions cannot resemble emotional reactions (or at least, not solely emotional) – the goal is to demonstrate a raised bar in the discussion, and perhaps even that it can be a discussion after all.

Now, note that I did not say that one must always be nice when doing this – that’s a mistake far too many people make. The whole point of both sarcasm and a less-than-polite tone is to communicate the amount of disagreement or disrespect one might have for something. Respect only that which is respectable, and if something lies very far from that, trash it with enough enthusiasm to emphasize this distance. And always feel free to bounce arrogance back with topspin.

It remains important, however, to adequately define the goals, and maintain those as the focus. Intolerance in most cases should be applied to a concept or view, not the individual holding that view. Perhaps a majority of people seem to think that others who disagree are The Enemy, which is pretty disturbing, but prevalent nonetheless. Circumventing this takes both a considered approach and the constant awareness of the tendency; the delicate balance between finding a standpoint to be ludicrous, but having no personal grudges, can be tricky. Still, making that effort is important, and a significant factor in how others will view your own argument. Bear in mind that intolerance does not have to be angry, or emotional at all. One can be firm and unyielding, or even openly derogatory, without emotional involvement, or overflowing into a judgment against a person.

Intolerance is a valuable tool in building an improved society, and unworthy of any kneejerk negative reaction. Use it as effectively as possible, and don’t fall for the appeals from those who think disagreement is unfair.

Not quite

Al Denelsbeck


Yes, being a northern hemispheran, autumn is encroaching here, which means the availability of subjects is waning rapidly and I’m going to be grumpy and irritable for a few months (not helped at all by sinuses that react badly to the conditions.) Yet, there are still some last holdouts defying the season, like an aster flower that abruptly came into bloom under the dog fennel that’s been my go-to for insect images lately.

Unfortunately, I misjudged the depth-of-field in the brief moment that I had this framing opportunity, and thus have to point out that the blob in the background is a skipper butterfly also taking advantage of this late bloomer – it just isn’t being communicated without my hint, is it? Ah well…

I have more stuff coming up, including at least another podcast, but right now there’s a cat sleeping on my microphone. And that’s a euphemism that you’re free to run with…

Whoops

Al Denelsbeck

I don’t use RSS feeds, thus I’m not familiar with how they display mistakes. So if anyone got a notification of a new post that doesn’t exist, that’s my bad – I inadvertently published an upcoming one when I meant to just save the draft. I try to space these out to rotate subject matter and length, but this one is too much like the last, so I want to get some other stuff in between.

If it messed up anything or confused anyone, I apologize. Have a handful of juvenile opossum, on me.

Oh, I don’t know… satan?!

Al Denelsbeck

Many years ago when I worked for a humane society, I attended a major training seminar for animal cruelty investigation, and one of the topics within was the tricky subject of animal sacrifice. There, I first learned of santeria, an offshoot of christianity practiced by mostly Cuban and Haitian immigrants to this country and, disturbingly, protected by law as ‘legitimate’ religious rituals. But the presenter also brought up satanism as a special case, because it deserved its own tact in handling. Not because it is a protected religion in the US, but because it doesn’t actually exist – not as a very large percentage of the population thinks, anyway. The one registered church of satan, founded by Anton La Vey, does not practice animal sacrifice or cruelty in any form, and in fact considers belief in supernatural beings and influence as “insane.” The special handling that is necessary is because damn near everyone thinks that satanism takes place, and when coming across, for instance, a beheaded chicken or tortured black cat, far too many people are quick to assume that this means some kind of black mass has occurred.

The parallel to this is, despite the countless reports of ‘satanic activity’ provided by police departments across the country, an extensive FBI investigation revealed that effectively none of them could be considered any kind of organized satanic ritual. Bluntly, satanism doesn’t exist. Neo Nazis and white supremacists, survivalist enclaves and slavery rings and even organ trafficking, yes – but not satanism. I won’t blame you if you think this sounds hard to believe.

Part of the reason for that, however, is the amount of effort the various churches put into the idea. According to them, satan is a very real being, constantly plotting the downfall and damnation of every living being on earth – why, is not too clear. But if you have a being that is perfectly good, then you must have a perfectly evil one too, otherwise nothing makes sense, right? We continue to believe that such things always boil down to opposing absolutes, despite the fact that this has never been demonstrated in any human experience. And of course, someone or something must be to blame for not only the nasty occurrences in the world, but the nasty behavior too. I admit to having a problem here, because I can barely even stay on my topic without running into the countless ways in which this crashes into absurdity. Remember that, right from the very beginning, god made humans who immediately did something bad. Blame it on the serpent or blame it on human nature, they both come down to god wanting it to happen. Or, not being the creator, or not being omniscient; choose all three if you like, it doesn’t get any more lucid no matter what.

As a species, we have a remarkably inept approach to evidence. Despite the daily reminder of how often people lie, we seem to have this propensity for believing whatever someone tells us, especially if they’re someone we ‘trust,’ or someone in a position of authority, or even if they just sound sincere. This can, and frequently does, countermand direct physical evidence, and even the lack thereof. Everyone knows that there are satanic rituals, always hiding just one rumor away, like the girlfriend that your buddy had while at summer camp, who no one ever met. You’d think, in our age when celebrity pregnancies are big news (I guess they’re considered a special accomplishment,) that ritual sacrifices and possessions would be covered a bit more if they occurred as often as anyone claims. But, that would require thinking.

Therein lies the problem. It’s really easy to throw blame onto an imaginary being that ‘personifies’ an abstract absolute. So we have god getting credit for any happy coincidence or even recovery from illness (funny how he started taking a much more active hand right along with our medical advances,) and satan getting the blame for any kind of bad behavior, especially if it’s something as horrifying and loathsome as disagreeing with any particular religious standpoint. There is a notable percentage of religious folk that believe that atheism=satanism, ignoring the fact that atheism denies the entire pantheon of supernatural beings. But for them, it’s very simple (and has to be): anything anti-god is by nature satanic. Don’t get me wrong, most religious people can count above two, all the way up to ten in most cases, but even when doing so, it often only occurs between two hands.

You might feel sorry for anyone who suffers from such a feeble ability to think, except that they’re allowed out on the streets. Some churches, of course, encourage such attitudes wholeheartedly, since anything more thoughtful than kneejerk reactions starts to make scripture look inane. There are two interesting things at work here, and by ‘interesting things’ I mean ‘blatant manipulations.’ The first is the oft-used ‘wolf-at-the-door’ concept, convincing people that there is something frightening that will happen if they let their guard down for even a second. This can convince them of much worse consequences than could ever be supported rationally; think about the McCarthyism attitudes of the 1950s here in the US. The second, closely related, is the skewed perspectives that are introduced with very powerful enemies. When there is an idea of ultimate evil, behavior that is merely anti-social, invasive, abusive, or just plain stupid is small potatoes in comparison. If this seems farfetched, remember it the next time TSA is groping your genitalia because suicide-bombers are so likely to target a flight from Atlanta to Des Moines. Fear changes the standards that people will allow.

Given such simple criteria for ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ it becomes extremely easy for the weak minded to automatically classify anything that disagrees with them as satanic influence. Since god is pure good, the obviously anti-social, counter-intuitive, or outright vicious actions that they are encouraged to enact through their religion aren’t really bad; how could they be? They’re just unfathomable by us mere mortals; the ends (god’s secret but assuredly good plans) justify the means. You’d think a perfect being wouldn’t have any difficulties making such things crystal clear, but there you go – some things are even out of god’s reach.

You have to admit, it’s a nice racket for any authority figure. “Look, doing anything else outside of following me blindly is evil!” What’s absolutely amazing is, practically no one has any difficulty seeing this as blatant manipulation – when it’s practiced by other religions. But to apply it to themselves, they first have to entertain the idea that they might be wrong, and could have been for a long time. If this seems like a minor thing to get past, you’ve never argued politics, or heard someone defend their dipshit boyfriend/girlfriend, or watched any sporting events at all. We often consider it stubbornness, but most of it comes down to simply the fear of being wrong – or even, being seen as wrong.

A small side note: very few people have ever considered that, if satan did exist, this is exactly the kind of trait that he would exploit in order to have people do his bidding. All you have to do is convince someone that they’re right, and they’ll do anything at all. Anyone who doubts this has never learned from history and never pays attention to world news.

But there is potentially another aspect which may be at work, and it can apply well outside of religion. I’ve remarked before about the tendencies for people to think in terms of absolutes and black or white decisions, and above I mentioned that the ‘wolf at the door’ attitude is commonly employed. The combination of these seems capable of producing the concept of a sworn enemy, a classification that allows for immediate dismissal, or at the very least, an uncritical bias against any argument or action from those so categorized. We see this constantly between creationists and ‘Darwinists,’ UFO proponents and debunkers, and in this country, Liberals and Conservatives (it applies far more often in this manner than between Democrats and Republicans, even while they’re ostensibly interchangeable,) or even between Southerners and Everyone Else. But even without such clear partisan lines, there’s also those who demonize non-organic foods, big corporations, “tree-huggers,” foreign auto manufacturers, and so on. And it’s not difficult at all to find multiple demons being associated or combined, for convenience’s sake it would seem.

Once such a category is determined (or even created,) it can then be considered the source of much woe, far bigger in scope or more pervasive in its manifestation than can be supported by mere evidence. I remarked earlier about the feminism fad, which has produced numerous activists who seem to find it the root of all evil – several decent blogs have been shifted in their nature towards dealing with this demon rather obsessively. At this point, I really haven’t come up with any good idea about what causes someone to select their ‘sworn enemy,’ but there is an unmistakeable tendency towards such things becoming a pet cause. My own speculation lies along the lines of someone seeing themselves as the hero (a stronger term than is warranted, perhaps, but effective in describing the mindset,) or the magnifying power of personal experience with some ill effect, something that I can attest to myself* and which bears more than a little statistical support.

Too frequently, this has several effects. The first is the hypersensitivity to everything that can be classified as that personal demon, often forcing a fit where one is questionable. This is followed by the exaggeration of the negative impacts, perhaps in a bid to justify the activism in the first place. And most importantly, there is the insistence and repetition of the problems this must cause to society; if everyone is talking about the loss of jobs to illegal aliens, then it must certainly be true – otherwise why would we keep hearing about it? But as the history of repressed memory hypnosis, childhood satanic abuse, and facilitated communication shows us, we can keep hearing about them even when they have nothing of any value whatsoever (see above about celebrity pregnancies.)

This handicap in thinking also devalues the search for good answers. When a recent study found a distinct bias in payscale between male and female undergrads, it becomes easy fodder for the feminism crusade, ignoring that it was demonstrated by both male and female supervisors. Another set of studies seemed to show the same kind of behavior, but found that the bias was more than sexual. When someone has a pet demon, the only thing that matters is what keeps that demon alive, but the underlying causes of such behavior deserve closer attention and more thought than that. Misdiagnosing the illness isn’t likely to lead to effective treatment.

The belief in satan has a further effect, in that behavior attributed to such influence falls outside of human control, obviating any action from mere mortals and, most especially, freeing the devout from any dealings. They don’t have to listen to any arguments, answer any questions, or put any thought into the situation in the slightest – a rational response is unwarranted when the only ‘good’ response is abject avoidance. Difficult situations, such as childhood sexual abuse within the family, no longer ever require contemplation, much less understanding or addressing; go with god and it’s all taken care of, and if that doesn’t seem to be working, pray harder.

While it would be nice if the world were simple, that desire doesn’t make it happen. Simple decisions are for simple minds; we should take more pride in using our brains and avoiding the practice of pigeon-holing. More importantly, with the eradication of demons we find ourselves dealing only with people, which places the prospect of finding solutions and correcting behavior within the realm of human endeavor.

* You see what I did there

Odd memories, part eight

Al Denelsbeck

When living in Florida in 2004, I was in an apartment complex with a central pond, which was only six meters from the back side of the apartment. This was a sliding glass door leading onto a screened patio, and during the warmer months, this door remained open while I was home (during the hotter months, however, the air-conditioning was on so the door stayed closed.)

At about three AM one morning, while I was working on the computer, I heard the resident Muscovy ducks starting to fuss. Ducks tend to be inactive and very quiet at night, so I knew something was up. Without turning on any lights, I went silently to the door and began watching the central court and pond area. My suspicions were rewarded by a small dark shape moving at the edge of the pond.

At the time I was using a borrowed Sony F717 camera, one with a couple of night-vision options. Unlike the military version of light enhancement technology, the Sony simply used its high infrared sensitivity, augmented by a couple of infrared LEDs mounted near the lens; this could be used to achieve sharp-focus in dark conditions, allowing the normal camera strobe to illuminate the scene for the image, or it could actually capture an image in infrared without emitting any visible light. Taking this in hand, I eased quietly out the door and began approaching, very cautiously, the shadowy figure nearby.

Let’s put it this way: when you’re hearing sounds in the early morning and it’s a small critter playing in a pond, there are not a lot of choices you have to sort through. The camera failed to lock focus from the distance of the door, and the flash was inadequate, but there’s no mistaking a North American raccoon (Procyon lotor, one I can recite from memory.) Now, raccoons are one of the few wild animals that almost scare me, believe it or not, and this is largely because I’ve had more than a little experience with them, having worked in wildlife rescue and rehabilitation. They’re practically fearless, and if they decide you’re a threat they don’t hesitate to bite fiercely. The reason there aren’t too many raccoon attacks is precisely because they’re not very afraid of people – maintain a safe distance and you’ll never trigger defensive action. So I crept forward slowly, keeping an eye on the intruder’s behavior.

For its part, it wasn’t very concerned, to such an extent that I suspect I was dealing with a female. While checking up on me frequently, she went about her business at the pond’s edge, rooting around carefully for crayfish or small molluscs. Raccoons rely on feel for much of their foraging, especially in the water where looking down through the surface can be difficult, so while their forepaws are busy they may be staring off into space, like someone doing the dishes while bored.

She worked her way along, and I followed at a discreet distance (the zoom lens and my cropping make it appear that I was right on top of her, but I was a little more circumspect than appearances.) I was trying to get a nice head-on shot, but she wasn’t inclined to accommodate me quite that much. Soon, however, she approached the small footbridge that crossed the pond, and when she disappeared under it I quickly slipped on top, hoping to catch her popping out from underneath.

Now, this is where I screwed up. I’m not sure what I was doing at the time, but I’d switched the camera from the IR-focus-assist mode that I’d been using to full infrared. Abruptly, she poked her head out from under the bridge right at my feet, and looked up at me curiously. Since the bridge was only about 40cm or less off the bottom at that point, I was just over her head. Intrigued, she stood up on her hind legs as I maneuvered for a clear shot, stretched out across the floorboards of the bridge, and tickled my bare toes with her agile little fingers. All I could do was quickly snap the shot in infrared. Remember what I said above about zooming in and cropping? Yeah, this one’s full frame and not far beyond a “normal” focal length. The blur over her nose is probably the lenscap dangling on its leash as I aimed straight down.

Disappointed, perhaps, that my toes did not match anything in her database that read “food” (they probably needed a wash at the time,) she dropped back down and under the bridge again. I could only smile as I pondered her fearless curiosity, and curse inwardly that I failed to catch a decent image of it. I seemed to get the better part of the experience, since she wandered off immediately afterward, but I wasn’t a world-famous blogger at that time*, so I suppose she can’t be blamed.

* I’m not a world-famous blogger now, either, but that doesn’t make my statement untrue.

On composition, part 14: Clichés

Al Denelsbeck

[This was originally intended as an article, many years ago, but I’m resurrecting it here because it fits the bill.]

Once anyone gets into photography in a serious way, especially if they begin investigating the artistic aspect of it, the topic of photographic clichés comes up. And it’s a loaded topic. The definition of a cliché is something that has become overly commonplace, hackneyed, and trite. Thus the implication is that producing a photographic cliché is a bad thing, to be avoided at all costs for the sake of art.

This is a trap, pure and simple, and one you should be careful of falling into. The trap is not of producing a cliché, in and of itself, but of worrying about it. Here’s why:

It’s almost impossible to avoid producing an image that someone, somewhere, will not call a cliché. Photography has been around a long time now, going through numerous different permutations and being handled by untold thousands of people. Most techniques have been tried before, and virtually every subject has been explored, often in great depth. Going through the effort of discovering something that hasn’t been done previously may mean an awful lot of research and stress, and in the end, are you producing something of value to anyone?

We respond to many photos because they strike something familiar to us. And of course, when you’re aiming to appeal to a broad group of people, you have to strike something familiar to all of them. This narrows down how many approaches you can actually use. One example: baby photos. And often, baby anything. We’re inundated with countless numbers of these, but we also know that they will remain popular, especially with anyone that possesses a maternal instinct.

Remember, too, that many elements of composition have been arrived at because they are almost universal in appeal. In other words, people don’t respond to them because they’ve been trained to, but because it’s instinctual. Because of this, those elements get used very frequently. This doesn’t make them bad – far from it. It demonstrates good photographic habits by knowing how and where these will work best and using them to their advantage.

It can be argued that this is not what is meant by “clichés,” but instead, certain subjects or approaches. Flower shots. Long exposures of waterfalls that turn the water cottony white. Black & white form studies of nudes, or high-contrast portraits of elderly people. Any of these, and many more besides, can earn a sneer from someone who has any kind of background in art. Chances are, they’ve seen hundreds of such examples before, and quite likely, better ones as well. And to some extent, such a response has a degree of merit. If you’re trying to stand out with your photography, you have to display some originality, something to identify photos as your own, rather than blending in with others. And this is to be encouraged. Most especially, you would want to avoid copying the work of others, or falling into a style that has been done in great detail before. These might prevent you from getting any recognition whatsoever.

But be wary of the ‘art world.’ It is a sinister place where the dividing line between following an approved style, and shamelessly copying other works, can snap back and forth according to whim. And in many cases, it has no bearing whatsoever on what might appeal to the broadest range of people, and thus sell very readily. Many professional photographers know that originality often takes a backseat to what people want to buy. Countless wedding and portrait photographers make comfortable livings off of producing package after package of the same shots, over and over again. They know that traditions and fads often dictate what people expect to see, and that this system has been around for ages.

Others eschew this and opt for a unique approach, and some of them make it work very well. But many have found that the competition from bulk outlets shows that the customers aren’t driven by originality too often, and that sales are often dictated by the nature of the customer, the marketing approach, and the other options within an area. So it’s not always the content of the image or the skill behind it. It bears noting that many things considered cliché arrived there because of their popularity, and that fashion, fads, memes, best sellers, and related concepts do not exist because originality is paramount; just the opposite.

So many photographers have found that they have to forsake the ‘artistic’ side of their pursuits in order to produce photos that the clients will buy readily. These might very well be trite or hackneyed, but does it matter if the client is willing to purchase it? Remember, the ‘Starving Artist’ is a cliché too (as is the ‘Art Snob.’)

You have to find the balance point that you’re comfortable with. If you’re after sales, you produce the images that sell the best, and it really doesn’t matter if they’ve been done before. If you’re trying to create art, or become a photographer known for a unique style, then you certainly have to invest your time and efforts into originality. As long as it isn’t originality for its own sake, ignoring the idea that appealing to a fair number of people might actually be a wise move. Believe it or not, this attitude is more prevalent than is often suspected.

And if you’re doing photography as a hobby, primarily for your own satisfaction, choose the subjects and approaches with which you’re most comfortable. Does this mean sunsets and butterflies? Then go for it. Sunsets and butterflies have become clichés, to some, precisely because people like them so much, and in the long run, there’s nothing wrong with that. If you try to avoid that in its entirety, you end up producing images nobody likes. And that can’t be good.

This is how it goes

Al Denelsbeck

So, are you considering becoming a nature and wildlife photographer? Then let me tell you a little story, but I’ll caution you not to consider this typical.

Last night, while examining the dog fennel plants for photo subjects, I came across a few dead ants and a wavy-lined emerald moth caterpillar trussed up in a small web, and began examining the surrounding area for the arachnid responsible. I was sidetracked by a jumping spider who actually dropped directly in front of the camera while I was looking – I knew this was a red herring, since jumpers don’t make webs to capture their prey, but I take whatever subject I can get. On returning, however, I did find the culprit, a tiny black spider about 3-4mm in body length, and managed a few pics even though it was shy and avoided posing (unlike the jumper.)

On unloading the card, I discovered something curious, which was that the spider had abdominal scaling that reflected the strobe almost exactly like mother-of-pearl. I returned for better pics, but in trying to flush out my model I panicked it, and it scrambled around agitatedly before escaping from my sight – when working at night by flashlight, it’s easy for something to hit the shadows and get under cover while you can’t see it.

I forgot about it until tonight, and went back out with the intention of capturing it and doing a ‘studio’ shoot in controlled conditions. Alas, it was nowhere to be seen, so I chased a few other subjects instead. After returning inside and unloading the memory card again, I was showing some of the images to The Girlfriend when I felt something walking on my arm, and lo and behold (you have to employ archaic phrases like this every once in a while or they’ll freeze up,) there was the spider I’d been searching for. I’m guessing it was curled up in hiding someplace on the fennel, and when poking around for other subjects I had brushed it off. I quickly popped it into a film can (ask your grandfather what this is) and set up my studio. If a subject comes to me, there’s no way I’m going to miss the opportunity.

I set up a white box, which I’ve never tried before, and did a few test shots, not really liking the results, so I went with more direct flash again. I stuck with the box since I knew my subject would scamper for cover and might go anywhere, so being within the box would limit its escape routes. The first setting, a sprig of fennel held in a soldering jig, proved not to work, since my eight-legged model simply ran down the fennel and across the jig arm, seeking shelter in a crevice. I then switched to the bug moat, again with the fennel, and this time managed to capture a fine selection of identifying images.

This is not to say that I’ve identified it yet – BugGuide.net is being balky right now, and what do you search on? Black & mother-of-pearl spiders? So I’m still looking, but if anyone knows, feel free to enlighten me. As I said, body length is roughly 3-4mm, and the web appeared to be of random strands, not an ‘orb’ or ‘net’ style. If it helps, it seems to have a habit of carrying along ants attached to its spinnerets, which it had even retained while on my arm, but lost when I ensnared it within the film can.

[Update 10/05: Found it! This is almost certainly a female Euryopis, probably Euryopis funebris.]


After my session, and after confirming that I’d gotten enough decent images, I popped my subject back into the film can and started out to release it. At this point The Girlfriend pointed to the floor and, somewhat less than calmly, inquired what that was. The front door doesn’t seal too tight, and a fairly sizable wolf spider had come inside and was scampering across the living room. The exchange of instructions and exclamations that ensued would have been quite entertaining to any spectator, but suffice to say that the spider was safely enclosed under a cup without loss of limb or too many accusations.

I took it outside and released it into the grass, then stalked it with the camera (believe me, doing a studio shoot was out of the question unless I wanted to sleep outside myself.) After a bit of dodging the spider paused, and I went in close for some introspective portraits – I was still using the reversed Mamiya 45mm and could do the serious closeups. This specimen was roughly 30-35mm in leg spread, probably about 12mm or so body length, which translates to appreciable size, though not as large as some that I’ve chased. The dewdrop above one eye was gained in its flight through the grass.


So, I have to say that having subjects come to you this directly is something you probably shouldn’t count on; in fact, get used to the opposite. But perhaps if you start a blog, they’ll figure they can obtain their fifteen minutes of fame by seeking you out.

Which might not be the best incentive for starting a blog…

Ain’t it the truth?

Al Denelsbeck

[Edited to add the podcast, and correct a couple of typos while I was at it]

Walkabout podcast – Ain’t it the truth?

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating (because, somehow, people still aren’t getting it – am I not reaching anyone?!?): “truth” is one of the most abused words that I’ve ever come across. It stands radically apart from “true,” which almost always shares a binary state with “false” and remains in the testable, demonstrable realm, frequently associated with mathematics. But truth somehow goes beyond that, inhabiting a space far beyond human knowledge and testable assertions – truth is what people seek, or even a transcendent property of being. If you doubt this in the slightest, pay attention to the context when someone uses the word. You won’t see it every time, but I’m betting you’ll see it used in this manner three times as often as not.

It is, of course, a great favorite of the religious, and ever-so-frequently in such cases, ‘truth’ is actually differentiated, even polarly opposed, to ‘that which can be demonstrated.’ The word is flung about to imply a special state of being that we cannot observe and cannot rely upon for any result, yet should form the backbone of our behavior. Scientists and their ilk cannot find ‘truth,’ since it lies outside of human experience, so despite the millions of discoveries and physical properties that we utilize daily, quite readily and happily I might add, it is all a sham that does not approach ‘truth.’

Now, I want to bring your attention to something. Truth is never something that goes against someone’s beliefs, desires, or moral attitudes, no no, but it often goes against those of someone else. Truth is self-affirming, by its very nature – truth will never prove you wrong, but you can easily wield it to prove others wrong. And I feel the need to point out that truth is good, so of course when you find it, it will support you. That’s how you know it’s truth. Lest I forget, there is also personal truth, which isn’t really any different until someone finds themselves without any decent way to argue their standpoint, in which case they can blurt it out in their own defense and save the day.

The most startling thing about the abuse of the word ‘truth’ is the irony. So many of the things chosen to receive the accolade of truth are in no way demonstrable, provable, dependable, or even the same for everyone. You’d think that the truth would be self-evident and inarguable, but very often this is exactly the opposite case; in fact the word is almost certainly used in such cases precisely because it gives weight to something that has none of its own. It becomes an emotional appeal, hopefully stirring something supportive in those who do not possess the ability to make simple judgments on their own. Little wonder, then, that it is tied so tightly to religion and conspiracists.

In fact, we can often use the word truth as a litmus test for corrupt thinking processes, since it forms a handy ‘out’ for the lack of supporting evidence. Those who favor the ideas of alien visitations and government conspiracies are inordinately fond of the word, claiming that it always waits just around the corner (while they already know what it is, of course.) Advocates of alternative medicine and paranormal powers apply the word to every circumstance that appears to support their beliefs, while (curiously) not applying it to the circumstances that fail to, no matter how badly those outnumber the former. Evidence is crass and clumsy, suspect by its very blatant nature, but truth can be found in the hints and clues hiding in the dust. That’s what makes it special.

The phrasing of that last sentence wasn’t accidental, by the way. In far too many cases, someone’s own idea of truth is what makes them special, perhaps a large part of the reason why it departs from common-as-muck evidence (that word must be read with a sneering tone to get the full effect.) If they followed the mainstream, they wouldn’t stand out, but they’re also not part of the fringe; instead, they are the few who know. The truth will set them free. Truth cannot be said to represent any distinctive property in these cases, but merely an eventual vindication of what someone wants to believe, the Big Reveal that finally justifies their desires.

There’s probably also an aspect of the human search for absolutes in there as well. Like good and evil, truth is supposed to denote something that can be counted on, never in question, never up for debate. Science changes all the time, and relies on evidence that is up for interpretation. It’s easy to get frustrated over the constantly changing ideas of what’s healthy for us, and whether a new fossil is important or not. Science on the whole doesn’t truck with absolutes, but only probabilities, in logical recognition that we could never establish an absolute anyway. Ironically, the few things that come closest to scientific absolutes, such as the laws of physics, are the things all too often countermanded by someone’s opposing ideas of ‘truth.’ This is potentially because facts are too impersonal to be good, like truth is.

Several times in online forums, I have come across those who repeatedly use truth in support of their standpoint, and I immediately ask them to define it. Is it telling that no one even attempts it? Did I make them aware of the problem? Recently, a better test occurred to me: Think about several things that comprise ‘truth.’ Will they all be the same if I ask again in ten years? Are they the same as the answers I would have received ten years ago? If not, what exactly is it that we’re dealing with? This highlights a potential perspective thing going on here, a “glass half full” concept: it’s easy to argue that anyone right now is the smartest they’ve ever been in their lives, but this should not be mistaken for the apex of knowledge – chances are, they’ll be even smarter tomorrow. Many people spend more time in consideration of what they’ve learned in the past and completely ignore what they may learn in the future. Strange but true.

Another fun test is to find two people with opposing ideas of truth and let them duke it out. Truth should certainly win out over anything else, right? Obviously at least one of them is wrong, and if neither one can convince the other, truth isn’t really apparent; so how can either determine who’s the delusional one? See if anyone manages a decent argument to dodge the conclusion that the word “truth” is simply an emotional crutch. You might also notice that people go out of their way to avoid exactly the situation proposed, never engaging in dueling truths; instead, they only express their standpoints to those who aren’t as insistent. Is this because they recognize that mere proclamation has no strength over an opposing proclamation?

Truth does another gross disservice: it halts the examination and learning process. If someone already knows the truth, why listen to anything else? It could only be false. While this implies an underlying arrogance – the idea that being wrong is simply not possible – it more likely indicates that someone actually recognizes the possibility and is trying to crush it. While knowing the truth should certainly make someone completely unafraid of open-minded discussion, this isn’t able to be observed very often. The use of the word can often be seen as a ‘quit while you’re ahead’ tactic, sticking a flag in a summit of knowledge that doesn’t exist, instead of eagerly climbing further. The analogy virtually prompts the question of who will gain the better view.

“Truth” is a word that may tell us a lot about the user, with a distinct chance that it is exactly the opposite of what they intended to tell us. Isn’t this fun?

1 … 267 268 269 270 271 … 311