Agreed. That’s why I think Lipka’s presumption of what is motivating the lady behind the customer service counter to suggest that he speak to the park manager, and Lipka’s presumption of what is motivating the park manager to look for photos of the park are both arrogant presumptions.

For all Lipka knows, both the lady behind the customer service counter and the park manager are both working artists and are working to integrate art into the visitor center. If you think that’s not possible, I’d point out that when I mentioned that I did landscape photography to the folks at the local Starbucks, it turned out that all the Starbucks employees were eager to have me bring in a portfolio, and TWO of the employees in a chain coffee store in a small town in rural WA state were art students (one at Cornish, one at some other place I don’t recall) and were thrilled to have an extra chance to talk art. And when I brought in a portfolio case a little while later, it turned out that one of the customers I saw all the time was a watercolorist and we had a wonderful chat about lighting in the valley. And none of that would have happened if, when the barista said “You’re a photographer? Can I see some of your work sometime?” I had responded by saying “Oh, you wouldn’t really be interested. I don’t make photos that people would like, I’m a fine art photographer.”

By “poor woman” I was not making fun of her; I was asserting my own emrassment that she was, in fact, put into such an awkward situation in which a “pictures that don’t show the place they are taken”-attitude comes face to face with an innocent real-world expectation of “seeing pictures of a park.” BOTH people were obviously in their own respective worlds.

You see, this is where we disagree. My point here is that you STILL assume you know what this woman was looking for, and you STILL don’t see that it’s perfectly possible that both the woman and the park manager were interested in photos in general and not just in photos that met the criteria of ‘photos that look like the things they’re photos of’. That judgement, made by Lipka, by Jensen, and by you, has absolutely no support in the story as told by Jensen or retold by you.

So not only do we not know if there were really two worlds colliding, here, but even if there were, one of the participants (the woman) appears to have been genuinely trying to be helpful and build a bridge between those two worlds, and the other participant (Lipka) was steadfastly and arrogantly rejecting that effort.

When *I* wrote at the end of my entry, “I only wish I were there to see the look of confusion on the poor woman’s face!” my intention was not to poke fun of the woman, but to *poke fun of myself (had I been there instead of Joe Lipka)*(!) from the point of view of the woman.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy it. If that had been your intention I suspect you would have written something more along the lines of wishing you’d been there to witness Lipka’s confusion and inability to come up with an articulate response because you have felt the same embarassment he did. But that’s not what you wrote. What you wrote was that you wished you’d been there to witness the woman’s confusion.

Even more to the point, if you’d written in amused sympathy that you wished you’d been there to witness Lipka’s confusion and inept response, I’d have written quite a different blog post in response.

Neitehr individual is “right” or “wrong,” of course; they are both sincerely reacting to the social/artistic context within which they are most intuitively comfortable.

Nonsense. You have absolutely no idea, none whatsoever, of what social/artistic context the lady behind the customer service counter finds most intuitively comfortable. For all you know, she’s a practicing abstract artist. And the fact that you think you know, a priori, what ’social/artistic context’ in which this woman is most comfortable is the very thing that makes me think that my assessment is correct.

I agree with you, Paul, photographers with this sort of attitude are missing an opportunity to connect to others. It might have been better if Jensen & Lipka had tried to explain a bit more straightforawrdly. There seem to be so many less condescending means to approach this situation than that taken.

I just took a look at Waddingham’s photos from Ethiopia in Extended #73 last night and was blown away. I certainly don’t agree with every choice Jensen makes about who’s portfolios deserve to be published, but he most consistently finds stuff that amazes me more than any other publication out there.

Well, I got that impression from listening to the podcast. I got that impression overwhelmingly. I still get that impression after reading your comment and going back and listening to the podcast again. Judging from the email I’ve gotten from folks who felt the same way about that podcast, I’d say that a fair number of people felt the same way.

Can different people listen to the same podcast and come away with different interpretations? I’m absolutely certain it happens all the time. You have your view. I have mine. That’s the way it is in the real world.

In all seriousness, the ugly negatives drawn from such a humble, sincere little story have got me thinking about whether I want to even continue with a blog (seriously). My intent is to inject a bit of humor and have some fun with what I consider I wonderful, beautiful artform. The world is filled to the brim with negativity already. If innocent vignettes such as this can be interpreted in this light (as apparently they can, and have been), I submit that its just not worth it (for me).

I think unless you’re open to the idea that people will disagree with you, sometimes strongly, you’re going to find putting your opinions out in public view frustrating.

I read your comment, thought “Ok, maybe he’s right and I’m wrong. I’ll go listen to the podcast again.” And I listened to it (twice), and decided “Nope. I still feel the same way”.

Want me to change my mind? Tell me WHERE I’m wrong. Telling me that I’m wrong and you’re right is unpersuasive. Telling me that it’s not the odious condescending story I interpret it to be without offering evidence to support that assertion is unpersuasive. Telling me that my disagreement with your position makes you feel bad, adds negativity to a world already supped full with horrors, and makes you want to quit blogging – likewise unpersuasive.

One question – you wrote “I only wish I were there to see the look of confusion on the poor woman’s face!” Perhaps you could explain why you wish you could have been present to revel in this woman’s confusion – and how your desire isn’t based on wanting to enjoy her discomfort in a situation caused by the deliberately unhelpful, condescending, and sneering response Lipka gave to her suggestion, when she only wanted to be helpful. If you want to talk about negativity, I think we might profitably start right there.

I still listen to the podcasts, but don’t get much from them any more. It all seems to have lost its way a shade, or maybe just stayed where it has always been and I’ve moved away.

I remember listening to that particular podcast and thinking it seemed somewhat superior and silly at the same time.