Boundaries — STREET SILHOUETTES

For most of the last ten years, I really didn’t eat meat. I didn’t do that for ethical reasons. I stopped eating meat for health reasons. Basically, the research was clear to me. The consumption of meat is the primary accelerant of cancer through the increased production of insulin growth factor hormones. Given my acceptance on that scientifically valid position, I stopped eating red meat first. That was followed by poultry. After that, I stopped eating seafood and fish. Last to go from my diet were eggs. Essentially, I was a strict vegan. Except I wasn’t.

Although I didn’t consume any animal protein for many years, I can’t say that I was a vegan since I didn't share the views promoted by vegans. Basically, I don’t believe the eating of animal protein is wrong. That said, being a vegan in dietary practice did make me somewhat sympathetic towards the beliefs of most ethical vegans. In other words, I believe the way we raise and keep the animals we eat to be downright wrong. The way in which corporate farms process livestock, poultry, and fish for the sake of optimizing profits is unnecessarily cruel.

Nevertheless, I’m mindful that cruelty is a necessary part of acquiring meat. The transaction of a life to sustain another life has always been a violent act - whether it’s a killing from a hundred bites and rips or processing at the slaughterhouse. That said, cruelty in killing or processing doesn’t justify cruelty in raising and keeping the animals we eat - given that instances of systemic cruelty does not exist in nature. Regardless, my decision not to eat meat is not for ethical reasons. I just believe it is not healthy to eat animal protein after the age of thirty.

Deepwood Gardens, Salem, Oregon - Leica M11 + Leica APO 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH-M

If you are a repeat visitor to this blog, then you will probably notice that I faithfully follow many quirky rules . No expletives in writing. I avoid using the third person singular. Morning photowalks (mostly). Five blocks of three stanzas and six photos. Variance of photos within each block of six photos. And of course, not choosing meat to eat. With such a dizzying number of rules to follow, plus many more that I haven’t disclosed, how is one like me ever going to just let life happen without yet another personal directive getting in the way of the fun?

Well, you know the old saying. It is all fun and games until someone loses an eye - and believe me, I have lost many an eye during my misspent youth… and early adult life 😖… and later adult life 😭 So now that I am older and much wiser, I realize the importance of boundaries - which essentially set parameters of what I can do or cannot do. In that way, boundaries provide me structure. It keeps me on a chosen path. And most importantly, it takes away the risk of losing an eye when lost in fun, or at the very least, saves me from getting a black eye.

Lamentably, it’s always in hindsight when we recognize the folly that took our eye from us. Lost in the fun, how could anyone possibly foresee peril on the horizon? Typically, no one ever sees danger until danger hits us flat on the face. And when it happens, there is no going back. So naturally, it’s a black eye for us. Or an eye lost. Or an even worse fate! Given the precarious nature of our better judgement in practicing foreseeability, I believe it just makes perfect sense to set boundaries. Failure to take such precautions is tantamount to negligence.

Setting boundaries in everyday life would seem like the prudent path to take. At least that’s what I think, which comes as no surprise. After all, am I not the aforementioned blogger who follows more than a few quirky rules for rather whimsical reasons? But unlike my demonstration of quirkiness, which has more to do with the way I structure all my blog entries and photos, the boundaries I put in place has more to do with how I work with my partners-in-crime - being the protocol concerning the scope, expectation, and conduct of my collaboration.

For starters, I keep my distance. Inasmuch as I regard all my partners-in-crime as a muse, I do not treat any of them like a muse in the extra-blog-related sense. In other words, I don’t mix with them outside the photowalk and I don’t involve myself in their personal lives. My connection to my partners-in-crime is a businesslike one and not an emotional one. I mean, why complicate a productive work relationship with the added variables of increased expectations and the possibility of hurt feelings? I mean seriously, why rock the proverbial boat?

Of course, that does not mean I do not get to know my partners-in-crime beyond a subject. I’m not that cold a human being. We talk. We get to know each other. We mingle as if we’re co-workers - or dare I say - as if we’re friends. How else are we to build a bond to establish any trust between us? I mean, I still want my partners-in-crime to not appear awkward in my photos. But, that is as far as our interaction goes. Beyond that boundary is terra incognita. There’s no going back to the certainty of a productive collaboration once that point is passed.

In addition to collaborative boundaries, there are photos I won’t take. Despite my muses being muses, it does not mean that I can take whatever photo I want. I won’t take any photo that would make my partners-in-crime feel uncomfortable. Furthermore, I won’t take any photos that I would make me uncomfortable. In part, I won’t take those kinds of photos because it’s not my area of interest. And in part, I won’t take those kinds of photos because not every reader frequenting this dog and pony show is comfortable with those kinds of photos.

I also won’t take photos that would capture my partners-in-crime in an unflattering way. All my subjects, once I get to know them - topographically speaking - has good angles and bad angles. I don’t take any unflattering photos because it unnecessarily makes my partners-in-crime look awful and it observably makes my photos look awful. Thus by inference, taking unflattering photos of my partners-in-crime makes me look like an awful photographer. Personally, I don’t believe it’s right to take photos of my subjects that can be disliked by them.

Last, I will only photograph my partners-in-crime in public spaces. I follow that rule to avoid any impression of impropriety originating from any miscommunication of intent. At least in public spaces, we are both protected by third party onlookers. Mind you, it’s not as if I haven’t photographed my partners-in-crime in private spaces before. That said, I no longer need to work in private spaces anymore since I no longer need to be in a control environment to conduct gear comparison, seeing that I have reduced myself to a one lens and body blogger.

Remembering all these rules (and many more that I have not disclosed) form the boundary of how I approach my collaborative process. Looking at these boundaries, it does seem excessively restrictive. After all, it limits the creative possibilities of what I can do in documentation. Perhaps? However, I do not find my boundaries to be stifling. They’re just rules for me to sidestep any foreseeable problem - whether interpersonal or ethical. In the final analysis, I believe it is worth the trouble to have boundaries if it saves me from any future troubles.

Besides, I have often found that boundaries ignite creativity, given that it necessitate innovation to overcome limitations. Moreover, boundaries simplifies the creative process by whittling down what one is allowed to do. In that way, boundaries provide us with focus by eliminating the distraction of infinite possibilities. Because of that, boundaries can confer onto us specialization. For my part in adhering to my whimsical rules, I’ve become adept in taking environmental portraitures that can be enjoyed by me, my partners-in-crime, and my viewers.

Take it from me. Create rules for yourself. Have boundaries. It will really simplify your life, specifically with your collaborative process. Seriously, why complicate your love for photography with unnecessary headaches that can be avoided? Photograph people with permission. Do not photograph your subjects in questionable ways without consent. And, do not get too involved with your subject. Photography is collaborative when a subject is involved. Because of that, it makes good sense to limit your exposure to any future grievances against you.

Even so, I guess there can be an argument for being more provocative by taking a less risk averse approach. I am aware there are so-called artists who believe that pushing the boundaries or going beyond it is necessary to create real art. Personally, I never subscribed to that mindset. I mean, I think it works. However, I also think it is shortcut, given that it sidesteps any consideration for the subject.

But, I suspect that most artists prefer taking shortcuts. That said, I believe there is always a price to be paid for taking shortcuts. I suppose that is why I am the person that I am. After all, being risk averse is why I choose not to eat meat anymore - seeing that it really is the best way to avoid cancer. Like I said, it’s all fun and game until someone loses an eye or gets cancer or lands up behind bars.

Special thanks to Grace for joining me on this photowalk.

Disclaimer

Aug 27 Boundaries

Disclaimer

Aug 27 Boundaries

Sep 3 Hump Day Sunday

Jul 18 Muse