Talk:Michal Chelbin

Influences
On this edit (by ): "We do not care who the subject claims is their influence but how that influence is thought by critics to show in the work + children is unsourced". Unreferenced material about children should definitely go, and yes I care about how citics think influence is shown. But I'm also interested (mildly) in who the subject thinks has influenced them. Such lists can of course be long, and/or self-aggrandizing, and somewhere there's probably a photographer taking the piss ("(Havergal) Brian, Sorabji, and Brian (Cohen)"). But this hardly seems sufficient reason to remove all such lists. (Tho BTW the name is conventionally spelt "Velázquez".) -- Hoary (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the influences info being reinstated. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Lopifalko; I've readded them. -- Hoary (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * While I can say that I'm okay with the inclusion of a list of influences in this article, would you mind clarifying what the statement "somewhere there's probably a photographer taking the piss" has to do with anything (and specifically with the article on Sorabji, which I took to FA status)? If it is indeed a comment on article quality, I will be happy to receive some feedback in that regard (preferably on another talk page), so long as it is actionable. And if that is not the case, that's okay too... Toccata quarta (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Toccata quarta, thank you for your good work on Sorabji. My (flippant) comment had nothing to do with the quality, or any other aspect, of the article, and only tenuously with Sorabji's oeuvre. Instead, it was related to the fact that, however unjustly, his work is little known, and (I think) mentioned more than heard. It's hard for me to imagine how photography could be influenced by Sorabji. But if it could be, then it could be influenced by Havergal Brian as well, I suppose. And conceivably it could somehow be influenced by Brian Cohen (authoritatively described as "a very naughty boy"). However, if some photographer were asked for their influences and replied Sorabji, Brian and Cohen, I'd have trouble believing that he wasn't pulling someone's leg. (The interviewer? The readers? Both?) Thanks to the (often fascinating) series "My best shot", I do see a lot of lists of photographers' claimed influences. Sometimes they do seem to be influences. Sometimes they're eminent photographers whose influence on the interviewee, if any, eludes me. Sometimes they're just novelists, musicians, etc that the photographer likes. Sometimes they're young, "emerging" photographers for whom I suspect the interviewee hopes to put in a good word. And occasionally, I do suspect that the interviewee is taking the piss. Instead of Sorabji and the two others, I could have said, oh, all sorts of stuff, but as another improbable threesome, The Anatomy of Melancholy, Melmoth the Wanderer, and Concerning the Eccentricities of Cardinal Pirelli. -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification (and for your informative comments on the world of photography, which I'm largely unfamiliar with and have had preciously few glimpses into). If I had to go out of my way to argue that Sorabji has had or could exert an influence on photography, I would point to the allusions to his music in Michael Finnissy's piano epic The History of Photography in Sound (a redlink, for the time being, though I intend to rectify that eventually [ideally sooner than later]), however tenuous such a connection might be. But I digress, as this conversation would best be carried on at a more suitable location... Toccata quarta (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd not heard of Finnissy, let alone that work. (Truly, Wikipedia lets me discover new dimensions of my ignorance!) Looking forward to reading that article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)