Ramblecrap...does it have a purpose?

[janepaints]

What RJ Lam is trying to describe seems kindred to Steiglitz's notion of Equivalents, yes? No?

Maybe the exact same blend of mind/grace/awareness/perception intended by Steiglitz's term.

[D. Bryant]

Found a nice website the other day. Belongs to one RJ Lam. Some very good images.

However, the artist (photographer) statement goes like this:

"In my photographic journey, it is the domain of interiority which I strive to essay and distill within the external world. Interiority and all that goes beyond the self - this is the prism through which the essence of my relationship to the external world is unmasked. It is through personal perspective and organisation that an image is wrought to reveal a weltanschauung of essences, transformed through the love and valorisation of light. Light organises interiority from without and enables a transformation of the external world in dialogic engagement. Thus mere representation and topography yield to an experience of participation with a landscape; a place and the subject itself.":



Can anyone translate this please?

Is there a URL to this site?

Don Bryant

[Donald Miller]

What RJ Lam is trying to describe seems kindred to Steiglitz's notion of Equivalents, yes? No?

Maybe the exact same state of mind/grace/awareness intended by Steiglitz's term.

Yes, I would say that they are on the same page as I understand it. The area where there may be some difference in these two individuals' related beliefs is that while Steiglitz seemed to indicate that his "equivalent" images were an indication of an inner orientation via his chosen subject matter...hence the external is more passive, Lam, on the other hand, seems to indicate something additional in that there is an ongoing and hence more active relationship between his inner being and the external world. As others have already said, "the camera points both ways".

[Donald Miller]

Is there a URL to this site?

Don Bryant

http://www.rjlam.f9.co.uk/RJ%20Lam.htm

[Duane Polcou]

Perhaps the duality or triality of the quadrophenia hydroponic nano-riffles of one's own heliotropic vibratory eco-roulette can only truly unveil the de-evolved sceptre of lower edge consciousness and, striated through the convex ND 8x venturi tube of holistic free range worm holes, would create an nth dimesion kokopelli pitting the didactic of a plate tectonic Skynyrd uber-trance to the introspective mein-kampfness of ones own ABBA-esque morphological mullet.

Or, you could just title pictures with a location and date, I guess.

[George E. Sheils]

[B][I]

Now it would help, in the future, that some of us could recognize that just because someone uses language beyond our intelligence and understanding does not necessitate the need for a personal attack.

Donald, thank you for correcting me.

Please don't assume that I or any others find this type of beyond our intelligence or understanding. I simply asked why some photographers/artists choose to write statements in language which is both obscure and let's be honest, pretentious.

The genius of Shakespeare lies in his ability to express complex notions in the simplest language. RJ Lam and some others choose obviously choose to do the reverse.

Unlike your response to me, I didn't make a personal attack on RJ Lam. I merely pointed out that the complexity of his statement flies in the face of the simplicity of his images.

Regards,
George

[Donald Miller]

Donald, thank you for correcting me.

Please don't assume that I or any others find this type of beyond our intelligence or understanding. I simply asked why some photographers/artists choose to write statements in language which is both obscure and let's be honest, pretentious.

The genius of Shakespeare lies in his ability to express complex notions in the simplest language. RJ Lam and some others choose obviously choose to do the reverse.

Unlike your response to me, I didn't make a personal attack on RJ Lam. I merely pointed out that the complexity of his statement flies in the face of the simplicity of his images.

Regards,
George

George, If you will take a moment to reread what I wrote, you will see that I did not single out you or any individual, for that matter. I left it for those who responded to your post to determine for themselves. My response to you was tempered in what I though was a sincere request for elaboration on the statement that Mr. Lam made. I reached that determination based on your request as follows

"Can anyone translate this please?"

I guess that I did not understand your intent at all...I say this because you seem to be making differing requests between this response and your original post. I honestly thought you wanted an explanation but it seems now that you were trying to be cynical. In the future, it may help if you communicate clearly your honest intent.

Most sincerely,
Donald Miller

[Paul Moshay]

I just surveyed RJ Lam's website and the work is beautiful, and no matter how he states it the work tells the tale. Paul

[otzi]

Oh dear, what world do I live in? For a purely agricultural perspective may I put it this way.

If I like what I'm seeing.
I'll shoot how I see it.
And hang how I saw it on the wall.

Now if the image strikes a cord and causes the viewer to pause just a moment in reflection, I consider it a success. Any attempt to tell the viewer how or what to think, I feel, is an insult and takes away proportionally from the image. Who am I that needs to tell others who or what I am or even what I think? Look at the image.

Have I lost the plot?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Perhaps the duality or triality of the quadrophenia hydroponic nano-riffles of one's own heliotropic vibratory eco-roulette can only truly unveil the de-evolved sceptre of lower edge consciousness and, striated through the convex ND 8x venturi tube of holistic free range worm holes, would create an nth dimesion kokopelli pitting the didactic of a plate tectonic Skynyrd uber-trance to the introspective mein-kampfness of ones own ABBA-esque morphological mullet.

Or, you could just title pictures with a location and date, I guess.

Hillarious!