Care for Some Gum?

On 14-Oct-17 4:35 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 10:55:10 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 10/14/2017 4:49 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 14, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote


snip

You should not sound so indignant.

Why not?

It's not personal.

Sure it is.

People wanted to follow PeterN's branch of the thread ....

Which was a blatant intrusion, and thread hijacking.


Aw! No it was not intended to be personal. Indeed, I was happy to see
that until the above post there were no personal attacks. I repeat, I am
far more interested in discussing and creating images. I had no reason
to attack. I consider my comments as a natural extension of yours. If I
said something to insult you, it was not intentional and I apologize.
Now, let's get back to the art and craft of photography.

I have to laugh at the use of "thread hijacking". While this thread
has continued pretty much on-subject of the original title, most
threads of any length in this group eventually stray wildly from the
original "Subject".

Threads are not proprietary to the originally poster. It's a
free-for-all where it is the norm for anyone to take off in any
direction they see fit.

Complaining about "thread highjacking" or "intrusion" is about as
laughable as the Usual Disrupter whining about "the subject is..."
when the original subject has long-since been diverted into other
areas.

What a wise fellow you are, Tony!!!

Have a great weekend. :-)

--
David B.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 01:49:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Oct 14, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:25:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Oct 13, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/13/2017 9:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 12, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):
On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):
On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck
said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg
https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg

Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg

Now that's my type of image.

I thought you might like the concept.;-)

I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random
application/placing and mix of color.

Actually Pollack is not pure random.

I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which
resonates.

His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the
patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very
familiar with. One
which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at
many
times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson,
Williams, Procter
Art Institute in Utica, NY.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg

Hijacking Snipped

Ah well, continuing the hijacked thread.

At least somebody recognized the hijacking for what it was. Thanks for
that.
Thread drifts in usenet are quite common.

Thread drifts are something entirely different to what happened in this
case.

IMHO this shift seems to represent more of a philosophic schism between
photographic realism and the extremes of artistic reinterpretations. I
respect both
the primary and [hijacked] secondary
threads. I will admit to a bias toward the artistic ..um, absurdities.
[YMMV]

You at least recognised, what had happened with regard to Peter hijacking my
OP regardless of your bias toward the artistic absurdities.

What happened with this shift was Peter injecting his interpretive artistry,
unnecessarily derailing any further discussion of the initial subject
images.
When I gave a hint at how I felt with regard to his intrusion he doubled
down. Peter responded with yet another“The image tells me what to do�,
along with one more “talking image�.

I responded with a stronger hint:

"...but WTF do any of those PeterN manipulations have to do with gum stuck
to
an alley wall, or Jackson Pollock?�

When Peter responded by adding yet another two of his talking images,the
hijacking of my OP was complete.

Each of us does different thing with our photographic captures, I dabble
with
HDR and tone mapping, B&W, film emulation, and various other stuff. I am
starting to experiment with long exposure with ND filters, and a bunch of
other stuff. Personally I don’t care much for Peter’s artistic
manipulations, and he knows that. So his injection of his work seems that
much more deliberate.

You should not sound so indignant.

Why not?

It's not personal.

Sure it is.

People wanted to follow PeterN's branch of the thread ....

Which was a blatant intrusion, and thread hijacking.

Sigh ...
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I have to laugh at the use of "thread hijacking". While this thread
has continued pretty much on-subject of the original title, most
threads of any length in this group eventually stray wildly from the
original "Subject".

Threads are not proprietary to the originally poster. It's a
free-for-all where it is the norm for anyone to take off in any
direction they see fit.

as usual, you're completely wrong.

thread hijacking is contrary to proper netiquette and forum rules.

in other forums, off-topic posts are moved to a more appropriate place
or simply deleted, and those who repeatedly hijack threads may find
themselves permanently banned.

it's also not surprising you're defending such activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_in_technology
...The points most strongly emphasized about Usenet netiquette
often include using simple electronic signatures, and avoiding
multiposting, cross-posting, off-topic posting, hijacking a
discussion thread, and other techniques used to minimize the effort
required to read a post or a thread.

http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/jameswilkins/502/502netiquette.html
...USENET netiquette, for example, focuses on forum interaction and
minimizing effort in following discussion threads. Common netiquette
in a USENET environment discourages off-topic posts or cross-posting
(the same message to various groups, lists, or forums), as well as
uncontrolled "flaming" or ³hijacking² a thread.

https://www.newsdemon.com/blog/top-10-golden-rules-of-usenet/
Thou Shall Not Hijack

With the many threads and posts on newsgroups, it¹s encouraged to
engage the conversation with relative material. However, using the
popularity of these posts to share information that is not relative
to the material or to engage subscribers directly is discouraged. Do
not use these posts to popularize, grab attention to or bring the
subject away from the content of the conversation. Consider what you
post and how relative it is to the ongoing messages. If it is
questionable whether your material is relative, instead post a new
topic of the material in order to gain a proper response.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I have to laugh at the use of "thread hijacking". While this thread
has continued pretty much on-subject of the original title, most
threads of any length in this group eventually stray wildly from the
original "Subject".

Threads are not proprietary to the originally poster. It's a
free-for-all where it is the norm for anyone to take off in any
direction they see fit.

as usual, you're completely wrong.

As usual, you stumble all over yourself in trying to start an
argument.

as usual, you're blaming others for your own ****ups.

What I said above is an observation of what goes on in this
newsgroup, and a very accurate observation.

that doesn't make it acceptable.

I'll snip all of the off-topic comments you made in your post because
they have nothing to do with the original subject. I don't intend to
join you in an attempt to highjack the thread.

i'm not the one who brought up hijacking.

i'm just pointing out that you're defending activity that is both rude
and unacceptable.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I have to laugh at the use of "thread hijacking". While this thread
has continued pretty much on-subject of the original title, most
threads of any length in this group eventually stray wildly from the
original "Subject".

Threads are not proprietary to the originally poster. It's a
free-for-all where it is the norm for anyone to take off in any
direction they see fit.

as usual, you're completely wrong.

As usual, you stumble all over yourself in trying to start an
argument.

as usual, you're blaming others for your own ****ups.

What I said above is an observation of what goes on in this
newsgroup, and a very accurate observation.

that doesn't make it acceptable.

I'll snip all of the off-topic comments you made in your post because
they have nothing to do with the original subject. I don't intend to
join you in an attempt to highjack the thread.

i'm not the one who brought up hijacking.

i'm just pointing out that you're defending activity that is both rude
and unacceptable.

An observation of what happens is not a defense of what happens.

except you did more than just make an observation.

you stated that threads are a free for all, something which violates
proper netiquette and forum rules.

you are very clearly defending thread hijacking as being acceptable,
and now that you've been called on it, you're trying to weasel out of
it.

If I
observe that many of, if not most of, Trump's statements are outright
lies, that is not a defense of lying or a defense of Trump.

diversion attempt noted.

If I observe that you usually inject comments into a thread that are
argumentative and disruptive, that is not a defense of argumentative
or disruptive comments or of you.

an observation that must only exist within your head, because i don't
do any of that.

On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck
said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg
https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg

Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg

Now that's my type of image.

I thought you might like the concept.;-)

I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing
and mix of color.

Bravely daring to continue the thread .. I believe the work and the photos
there of represent a subset of pointillism. I might go farther and call the
subset textured chaotic pointillism. ;-)
I also suspect much of the impact of this vast gum sculpture doesn't
translate well to a photo, much (as I've heard) the full impact of
Pollock #2
doesn't get captured by photos. I will say that Savageduck #2 [wink]
captures some of that vastness. :-)
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On Oct 15, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck
said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg
https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg

Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg

Now that's my type of image.

I thought you might like the concept.;-)

I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing
and mix of color.
Bravely daring to continue the thread .. I believe the work and the photos
there of represent a subset of pointillism. I might go farther and call the
subset textured chaotic pointillism. ;-)
I also suspect much of the impact of this vast gum sculpture doesn't
translate well to a photo, much (as I've heard) the full impact of
Pollock #2
doesn't get captured by photos. I will say that Savageduck #2 [wink]
captures some of that vastness. :-)

;-)

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Oct 15, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Oct 15, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck
said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg
https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg

Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg

Now that's my type of image.

I thought you might like the concept.;-)

I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing
and mix of color.
Bravely daring to continue the thread .. I believe the work and the photos
there of represent a subset of pointillism. I might go farther and call the
subset textured chaotic pointillism. ;-)
I also suspect much of the impact of this vast gum sculpture doesn't
translate well to a photo, much (as I've heard) the full impact of
Pollock #2
doesn't get captured by photos. I will say that Savageduck #2 [wink]
captures some of that vastness. :-)

;-)

Here is a section of Pollock #2:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/07nar87vykgn05r/DSC_0547C2.jpg

....and a section of said SD #2:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dyhqjvsm1o0v8xu/DSCF5897C1.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 10/15/2017 05:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 15, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Oct 15, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck
said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg
https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg

Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg

Now that's my type of image.

I thought you might like the concept.;-)

I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random application/placing
and mix of color.
Bravely daring to continue the thread .. I believe the work and the photos
there of represent a subset of pointillism. I might go farther and call the
subset textured chaotic pointillism. ;-)
I also suspect much of the impact of this vast gum sculpture doesn't
translate well to a photo, much (as I've heard) the full impact of
Pollock #2
doesn't get captured by photos. I will say that Savageduck #2 [wink]
captures some of that vastness. :-)

;-)

Here is a section of Pollock #2:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/07nar87vykgn05r/DSC_0547C2.jpg

...and a section of said SD #2:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dyhqjvsm1o0v8xu/DSCF5897C1.jpg

I think SD #2 is Pollock by way of Monet.
I looked up Pollock #2, and while I never saw it in person, to me it's
just paint spatters. It would be a nice way to break up a big expanse of
a plain wall, but I don't see the "excitement" in it. (I may not know
art, but I know what I like!)
I think SD #2 falls short when you can't see the texture of it. Or
experience the bio-hazard.

--
Ken Hart

On Oct 15, 2017, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 10/15/2017 05:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 15, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Oct 15, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck
said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg
https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg

Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg

Now that's my type of image.

I thought you might like the concept.;-)

I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random
application/placing
and mix of color.
Bravely daring to continue the thread .. I believe the work and the photos
there of represent a subset of pointillism. I might go farther and call
the
subset textured chaotic pointillism. ;-)
I also suspect much of the impact of this vast gum sculpture doesn't
translate well to a photo, much (as I've heard) the full impact of
Pollock #2
doesn't get captured by photos. I will say that Savageduck #2 [wink]
captures some of that vastness. :-)

;-)

Here is a section of Pollock #2:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/07nar87vykgn05r/DSC_0547C2.jpg

...and a section of said SD #2:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dyhqjvsm1o0v8xu/DSCF5897C1.jpg
I think SD #2 is Pollock by way of Monet.
I looked up Pollock #2, and while I never saw it in person, to me it's
just paint spatters. It would be a nice way to break up a big expanse of
a plain wall, but I don't see the "excitement" in it. (I may not know
art, but I know what I like!)
I think SD #2 falls short when you can't see the texture of it. Or
experience the bio-hazard.

I thought it best not to lick either one.

That said, the Pollock, much like “The Night Watch" has to be seen in the
flesh to be truly appreciated.

--

Regards,
Savageduck