Blogadoon, the speaking trumpet

*January 8th - 14th 2006

Sunday Chopped
Saturday East London Line
Friday Say cheese
Thursday Watlington
Wednesday Peopled
Tuesday Watlington
Monday Costly

*Sunday 14th January

Nobody who's been to North Greenwich and seen the Slice of Reality could fail to read the headline as: Navy to cut its fleet in half.

*

*Saturday 13th January

Sleeping his way to work, 8th November 2006, 7:45am

East London Line, Autumn 2006

*

*Friday 12th January

Speaking of portrait photography, formal or informal, overt or covert, there are two quotes that I stumbled across recently that have echoed more than most.

The first is from some successful photographer or other, interviewed in some camera magazine. One of his tips was "Be more self-confident and don't wait for permission from other people - I wish I'd realised this when I was 20."

I'm not sure whether he's talking specifically about taking strangers' photographs, or making a more general philosophical point - but either way it makes sense: what, after all, is the worst that can happen should someone even notice you snapping them from a polite distance?In eight cases out of ten, they might feel mildly aggrieved by the unwarranted attention; one in ten will feel flattered, and the remainder may choose to confront you, mildly or otherwise. That's not bad odds.

(I did hone a pretty good line a while ago: "Would you mind being in my photograph?" But I've never yet got to say it.)

The other quote is from Wittgenstein: "The human body is the best picture of the human soul."

Like most of Wittgenstein's quotes taken in isolation, this sounds great - in a Hallmark-does-philosophy way - until you question it. What else did you propose, Ludwig? A snow-covered alp?

The unspoken assumption is that one would want to look at pictures of the human soul. You only have to start visualising the souls of the current Cabinet (or, for that matter virtually anybody else in contemporary politics) to see the lie in that: John Prescott's soul, anybody?

And what does that make of the flash-frenzy outside the Ivy every night? ("Quick, quick, Tamara Beckwith's soul!")

Nonetheless it does offer a partial explanation of why, given a choice, most people (my Dad included) would rather look at a picture of a random person rather than a random building, flower or cloud.

And it offers another route through the thorny etiquette-hell of snapping strangers: "Would you mind terribly much if I pictured your soul?"

Failing that, wait till they fall asleep...

*

*Thursday 11th January

Stephen, New Year's Day at The Old Rectory, 1st January 2007,12:30am

Watlington, Winter 2006

*

*Wednesday 10th January

"You take quite good photographs," said my Dad, some 40 years ago, "but why are there never any people in them?"

It's a remark that's haunted me ever since, if for no other reason than for the forebearance I displayed in not snarling, by way of reply, "Because the appallingly unaffectionate upbringing you gifted me has left me severely dysfunctional when it comes to normal social relations, dear Father."

But he had a point.

I still have ishoos with pointing a camera at people, though these days I don't judge myself as harshly as I used to, having absorbed the valuable lesson that, if I have a problem with it, it's more than likely that it's problematic for most people.

Taking someone's photograph is much like phoning someone up, it seems to me: an minor act of unwarranted aggression, and not something you should do unless you're sure of your welcome, or simply don't care what reaction you might get.

That makes my natural constituency two-fold: those I can cling to, and those I can run away from.

No change there then.

*

*Tuesday 9th January

Vicky, New Year's Day at The Old Rectory, 1st January 2007,12:30am (it's a crap pic, but she'll kill me if she's not in here somewhere)

Watlington, Winter 2006

*

*Monday 8th January

The Independent ran a short vox-pop today, asking people how much they'd spent this Christmas. At least twenty per cent answered in excess of a thousand pounds; most volunteered a figure around the £500 mark.

My figure would be well under £50: a few more pints than usual, plus a bagful of decorations from John Lewis as material for the odd seasonal snap.

Given that I was paid slightly under £400 to work on Christmas Day, I guess that puts me in profit.

The phrasing of their question still seems wrong to me, however. Surely it should be:How much did Christmas cost you?

*

......previous week


CLOSE TO HOME

current BLOGADOON
next week's BLOGADOON
last week's BLOGADOON
first week's BLOGADOON
Photographs
Blogadoon at Flickr
Blogmarks
Gay London
Deathtolls
RSS feed xml badge


MUTUALLY SUPPORTIVE
Bboyblues
bitful
overyourhead
Trouser Browser
note to self
linkmachinego.com
minor 9th
bob's yer uncle
<
troubled diva
Moreawayoflife
Groc's blogette
<
Venusberg
lifeasithappens
blast!
positively mental
Nick Jordan
<
non-sequitur central
everything, but
Upside-down hippopotamus
living proof
goluboy
SistersTalk
<
How to learn Swedish
brainsluice
Minkered
lukelog
nutgroist
Sale bête
<
Full list of other blogs


RESPOND TO