The question aside about the quality and impact of his photos (where I would very much agree with Paul and Paul): In my mind Mark has an attitude that resembles a bulldozer: very strong, very powerful, very narrow-minded. And leaving a wake of destruction and anger – instead of at least trying to sort out the arguments and reach some conclusions or synthesis that might take things to the next level.

Concerning his actual post: Yeah, there is actually one sentence that I would wholeheartedly agree to ("The Art of "Seeing" is in your head, your heart, your soul – not in your camera."). But most for the rest: in his permanent rage he is simply missing a lot of points.

But I have to admit that the last sentence of his post made me laugh out loud…

I would say that your photographs are quite different than his. Yours do not lack that soul. For you, it seems, there is something more that you wish to convey, rather than the subject as a mere subject. Your bicycles for instance are a bit more. Perhaps I'm reading into it what I want.

I guess that I just don't 'get' it. That's OK, though. I think, too, that what keeps me from probing deeper is his huge ego.

Of all the photographers that I know, Mark has the most infallible feeling for balance. He obviously composes his images to a high degree, more than anyone I know. For me that is pure magic, maybe especially so, because I feel in a very similar way.

When I compose, I balance. Subject matter is not completely unimportant for me, but it is not that important. What counts is balance. Mark is the Zen master of the perfectly balanced Square.

It's hard to describe. I feel it, it strongly resonates with me, and what completely fascinates me, is that he can do that with every single image, at least those that he publishes. It's not that I can't do one thing or the other quite well, but not with such machine-like consistency. Mind though, that there is nothing machine-like in his imagery, it is only the consistency and the precision.

Does that make any sense?

What do you see in his photography that is so "brilliant".

When I look at his photos, I seem them as pedestrian, quotidian, boring, perhaps ordinary, at best. They look like snapshots that I would discard as soon as saw them. Mind you, this is not an ad hominem argument, merely my opinion about his photography and a question as to what you see.

That said, it's good that he sticks to his guns and does the type of photography that appeals to him, no matter if I like it or not.

I guess i picked up a bit of his attitude from reading his post

And i am reading your blog rather than Mark's for quite a while now, never thought of unsubscribing I like your photos and i'm learning a lot from them even if i never say a word

Sometimes I have the impression that he almost misunderstands on purpose, but I guess he simply does not take the time to read carefully. Of course that's telling as well.

I still visit his site. Yes, he is intolerant. Yes, he tends to put much more care in crafting his own words than in reading other people's. Still, he is a very original thinker, and what he says, regardless of how, tends to be very relevant.

On the other hand, I see what you mean, and if I had to choose, I'd see you rather here than on Mark's blog anyway