"...the narcissism of small differences." (Fashion Only Forum 12/22/00)

When big differences disappear, small differences take on a great importance.

I saw this comment today in an article dealing with the presidential campaign. In other years the differences were between one who thought the Soviet Union "shared our hopes and dreams," and another who thought they were "the Evil Empire." That's a big difference. This time it was about single digit differences in tax reductions and drug costs to old people. And the entire debate had to do with those trivial differences.

For the most part the regulars here agree on the big issues. Though some define editorial fashion photography as a subset of commercial photography, and others call it a branch of fine art, most everyone can recognize the differences between it and, say, catalogue fashion.

Jacque had his own ideas when he created this forum. His definition required the setting of "a mood - a feeling." John Fisher's definition always required nude underage models, though it was intended as a spoof, I believe. There is enough room to roam in the ideas of the members that though most of us appreciate the same images, we can't always state definitively why. Maybe it's a language problem - lack of vocabulary. Maybe it's a cultural thing. I know when I lived in North Dakota my view of how the world worked was limited and outright wrong. Or so I think from where I am in California today.

Because the web lets people from different places and different cultures talk like they're neighbors, it's not surprising that differences of opinion should surface, and even though those differences are limited to the small confines of editorial fashion photography, they become huge in immediate importance.

But the point of this post is not to try to diminish those differences. Nor is it to reduce argument or discussion. Both are just fine and are important to the health and utility of the Fashion Only Forum.

Here's the point: Someone disagreeing with you isn't necessarily evil. The posters here deserve the respect of our attention and consideration. Without reading the different opinions for their meaning, rather than just for the fighting words, we aren't giving the proper respect to the very people who share our interest in the larger issues.

Having said that, I want to inject one self-serving thing. In the Fran Bilder (D. Brian) post below, read it again critically. There are issues there about legality, morality and ethics (which is far different than morality). The only illegal act is a person under drinking age drinking alcohol. The morality issue is broader and includes community standards of a conservative California city, consensual acts, homosexuality and other kinks, and looming large, ageism. And there are the ethical questions concerning power and will. Several posted "what if" answers, but none of those "what ifs" occured. Several were shocked with Fran's (my) behavior, though the behavior itself caused no harm and did not take advantage. And a few probably assumed that there was some uneven power distribution being used to some advantage by Fran (me), but anyone familiar with the real power dynamics in that situation will recognize that the model has most of the power.

As I've said privately, I won't ask that any post I make be deleted because I get heat for it. I expect heat when I say something that I know isn't acceptable to the mainstream. I want heat and discussion. It's the thought created by such discussions that help us think and grow, and whether it polarizes us or not, it's valuable to everyone. I just hope the polarizing on "the small differences" doesn't prevent continued discussion and fascination with the larger topic.

-Don