artBob Loc: Near Chicago

I appreciate the concern and response. From what you said, I understand your point of view. However, Your perceptions are sometimes different from mine. I would like to go over some, because the truth is important to me, and because I hope Hoggers will be able to make better posts from learning from us. So, here goes:

You write: "when you malign a person I have high respect for I feel compelled to comment. The moderator you speak of is knowledgeable, talented, and one of the most helpful of UHH posters."

I totally understand defending someone you respect. I respect him, too, in the sense that respect means seeing what is really there. As I have written elsewhere, R.G. know his technique vey well, and does try to help. However, his view about what is helpful is often confined to his own way of working, It often doesn't help because it ignores the stated or otherwise obvious intent of the OP. I have examples, but don't want to get too specific and drag someone else into this "tar baby."
An example is where he suggested someone crop a photo for better composition and enlarge a figure within, when the composition as posted was not only fine, but was an essential part of the photo, as was the size of the figure, the photo being about a distant and lonely figure. I noticed this narrow view, and responded to the OP that their take was fine, and they might make their expression even stronger by doing such and such.
Another example occurred when he kept repeating that I should follow the rules, after I had posted that I indeed would not mark (although writing that, and giving evidence, that in the real world that illustrative marking was quite acceptable and universal; while he ignored checking out my fact, instead writing that, paraphrasing, "most here don't feel that way").
Another example is the postings in the recent thread where he eventually banned me. I never insulted anyone. I pointed out that the OP had talent in what she did; yet somehow he interpreted an insult (as honestly, did she), and never responded to my pointing out a second time that she had been complimented and my original seeking of something unique from her photo trip was just a query into an area that I like. He was relentless in demanding an apology which would have required me to lie about what I had done. As a moderator myself, I think his inability to perceive what was really happening, to falsely profile, after he asked for a received a clarification which he never referred to as he proceeded to do his demands, and to throw fire on a problem--all three convinced me that his actions as moderator were not up to usual standards. I had lost respect for him.

You also wrote:
"In the more recent thread, apparently the one that caused your exclusion from FYC, you told the OP: “I see. Your goal as a photographer is to make money from shots that please others.” This may be a harmless factual statement from your perspective, but can you not see how that can easily be interpreted as a putdown of the photographer’s character? A snide swipe at the validity of the photographer’s motivation?"

I do not see it that way at all. How could you and R.G., when she herself said it in the prior post? Knowing, however, that some people are overly sensitive to that, I followed up saying that photography, like music, has very many types. Each has a place. My concern has always been to help a person get better, if needed, in whatever field of photography or art he has chosen. This view that you share here is most saddening.

So, there you are. How my perceptions are different from yours. I sure hope I am right, while remaining open to all comments. Thank you for taking the time to share your perceptions.

Bob

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

I guess you missed where I eventually mentioned which moderator, R.G., of the three I thought overstepped his role. I didn't mention him in the first post, because accusations stick in our heads, and I didn't want to smear anyone. IF a person was interested in the situation, and read the thread, he would know the moderator whom I spoke of.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Yes, I can still view. But just now I clicked on a Watched Topic, a fine pic in which I saw something i wanted to encourage, wrote my response, clicked send, and saw that I had read something in the forum from which I was banned. Hardly earth-shaking, but blatantly un-fair and unprofessional, for reasons posted earlier in this thread.

As for choosing this forum, it was not just because it would "do [me] the most good". These photographers worked in the direction I am most qualified in, I wanted to both learn from and give to them. Learning being usually a dialog.

Bill_de Loc: US

I found and read the comments that got you banned. Your comments definitely came across as condescending with a few backhanded compliments thrown in for good measure. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't see it that way, there were enough comments from others that should have made you stand up and take notice. To be blunt, you may be a legend in your own mind, but it ends there.

--

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

And good advice it is. However, it would seem "learning/critiquing" is the very basis of a forum called "For Your Consideration," no? I try to do critiquing the right way. Of course this is not a school. Lordy, I think you went to an art school--the comments here are quite milder than there!

Add to that that, as a community college art prof, my students ranged from those pursuing an art degree to women who had to "get out of the house" after their husband retired and hung around too much. Respect, understanding where they came from and where they wanted to go was a prime directive.

As Eleanor Roosevelt supposedly said, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." When a properly couched critique results in a personal attack rather than a discussion of the point at hand, that is when a critique becomes a battle. Bless you for being a peace lover. I, however, believe in reciprocity in a discussion: If someone attacks me, I fight back, usually with facts, then with "authority" (my qualification to address the ideas), then with "Oh yeah......."

As can be seen from the comments here, my approach works with some and fails with some. Having been evaluated by students for 30 years, I suspect the percentage here is about the same as then. I can certainly live with that.

Thanks again, because I think you are a straight-shooter as a person and a good shooter as a photographer.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Your perception is obviously shared by some. Just as obviously, not shared by others. Ah, perceptions! Always somewhat tinged, often by psychological drivers.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I read the entire thread in "For Your Consideration" and compared to many threads I've read here over the years your comments, which perhaps could have been more tempered and less critical, were extremely mild by comparison. In fact the person to whom your comments were addressed was highly insulting and demeaning when she said, "I see you are at it again. I think you may have some senility and perhaps you should get that checked. I am serious in saying this. You are quite offensive to many and there is simply no need for that." I don't know you well enough to comment on anything you might have said in the past, but kicking you out of that forum based on that one thread alone seems like a bit of overkill.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Why would you think it was only one thread?

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

Artbob's post is so typical of others that have been banned from sections.
They have created upset and discord but despite much-reasoned argument and advice have refused to obey the rules of the section or to moderate their ways. After being, as a last resort, banned from a section. Banning isn't something a moderator takes lightly, then they post in another section how hard done by they are. How misunderstood and innocent of any wrongdoing they are in an attempt to curry sympathy and paint all others as being in the wrong.

There must be a medical name for such behaviour but I can't call it to mind just now.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

How could it have been a wrong decision if we are having a discussion? Sincerely.

Perhaps you have read some of my recent posts, revealing that the people I have worked with over the past 30 years were quite varied, from those pursuing or in the art field, to women getting away from newly retired husbands hanging around the house too much. Your perception of my "superior attitude" was rarely supported in my student evaluations, also reviewed by my bosses. So, the sensible thing is to align you with the very small minority (about 3 in 500) who felt that way. Coupled with your hostility to art professionals, it explains a lot. News flash: Commercial Artists, Fine Artists, Art Ed majors--all have some in their ranks who attack the other fields. They are insecure. Each field, as I tried to show with my analogy to music types, has its own areas. The only thing that matters to me is that every person, who wants to, is aiming for the highest standards in their chosen field.

You irritate me quite a bit when you write that "You do often come across as condescending and righteous in the sense that you know 'ART'." But, you see, I do. I have taught it, been paid to write and jury, and practice it. I suspect the feeling of condescension you get is wrong at the start of a discussion, or deserved if you act irrationally or spitefully as the discussion proceeds. Check both. If you have any proof otherwise, present it.
If someone knows more than you, it strikes me as nuts to put them down. The first time I was the subject in a group crit, the instructor said, "That's what I like to see," and I'm thinking, "Hey, I did it!" Then he continued, "When you make your mistakes, make them big." I took a positive and a negative away from that, both equal as a learned evaluation. I feel that your personal dislike that some are superior to you is not helping.
My "artBob" handle? Really. I thought it showed that the person was important, the speciality less so.

I think I covered the points that bothered me about your statement. Actually, I didn't find your gripes helpful because they were unlike some others who criticized my behavior more factually and less emotionally.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I have no general idea of his past comments in other threads. I do recall reading some posts by him before, but I guess they were probably less aggressively critical. In any case, since I don't know his history, I based my comments on that thread alone which seems to have been the catalyst for his removal.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

You know what assuming can lead to? 😇

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Dodie, it's a great opinion. I totally think you are right when you wrote, "The goal of an instructor should be to give the best instruction in a manner that gives the 'student' encouragement and a desire to continue with the new knowledge they have received." However, fellow photographers here are not my students. I respect them as fellow photographers. That they perceive themselves as students being put down, as some apparently do, is not within my control. Clearly, others do not. Since I do not think I have a Jekyll and Hyde problem, the evidence seems to point out that it is the perception of my comments rather than the comments themselves that are the real problem.

Also accurate is "Less abrasion would create a conversation that would be more openly received." However, no one has pinned down my starting down the path of "abrasion." Vague references to "tone" are not dependable, as previous comments are split about that tone.

Finally, I think your suggestion of "mending relationships" is a good one. Since no one can pin the breakdown on me, I think "via the lens" and "R.G.' should apologize, unless they can prove (my post in the context of the previous post) that I started the "abrasion."

Thank you for your sincere assessment.
Bob

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

There you go again Bob, blaming everyone else and accepting none yourself.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

I do not trust my own mind, as you should be able to ascertain. Nor do I trust yours. That is why I shared openly, and asked for others' opinions, based on facts. That you use the circular argument that others were offended because they were offended doesn't work for me. Sorry. Have you read any of my comments about evaluations and perceptions? The offended demand the most attention, but when it becomes an objective evaluation of all those in the circumstance, often, at least in my 30 years in teaching, the offended are a very small contingent.