Anti-Posing

Tom Burke wrote about yesterday's post: "Good article! I greatly enjoyed it. I too obsess about things, especially when making a significant purchase (camera, computer). Interestingly, once I’ve made the purchase I tend to relax about it, and all the little pros and cons that I was obsessing about become unimportant as I just use the item."

Truer words were never spoken. Tom's right—it only matters while you can still change the decision. 

I suspect the "optimizing" attitude (which I definitely have, so don't think I'm being holier-than-thou) is usually based on two underlying causes: the desire to control something in our lives by having it be "perfect," because other things in our lives are not perfect (or maybe the flip side, to minimize the chance of buyer's remorse); or, for status: the desire to lend ourselves prestige by having the best of something and thus being the envy of our friends. 

That last impulse backfires, of course, when the possession in question brings an unintended association, as Keith Cartmell points out:

"Once upon a time I was a triathlete. Some of them obsess about bicycles, trying for weight savings measured in grams. They'll use an oval tube in their drink bottle, oriented to cut wind resistance. The bike itself was designed in a wind tunnel, weighs almost nothing, and can cost a substantial fraction of what a nice new car costs. No matter that the rider is by far the heaviest and least aerodynamic component. The best professionals can take advantage of such bikes, but most are sold to well-heeled amateurs who are mid-pack at best.

"We called such people posers."

Would I be a poser if I bought the Ukrainian chess pieces? I guess. Except I'm not sure anyone expects the sight of a chess set on display in the home to mean that the owner is actually a player. You can be an enthusiast of something and love it and still stink at it. I had a friend whose basement was filled with NFL paraphernalia and regalia, and she was never a football player—football was her bond with her Dad. Can you collect chess sets and not be a chess player? I don't see why not. I knew a guy who collected 1950s lunch boxes. People collect all kinds of useless things.

Pedaling faster
I used to really like the attitude that's the opposite of posing, too: the "make-do" or "can-do" attitude. That is, give me anything halfway decent and I'll make do. You don't need a good chess set to work on chess, you just need a serviceable set that doesn't actively irritate or embarrass you. And, pace Keith Cartmell, you don't need the absolute best, lightest bike, but you do need a good one that's light enough.

...And of course you need to be able to pedal it faster. Someone whose skills are top-flight doesn't actually need tools that are the very best. Like a skier whose skis are old and well-worn but who can carve moguls like a pro, or the skilled chef who has only two knives. I recall a story (maybe it actually was a short story) about a wealthy guy who goes with a friend to play golf. They're both outfitted beautifully and own the best of everything, from the latest shoes to the highest-rated golf bags, and they're carrying as many clubs as they're allowed to. Because they're only a twosome, they're paired to go out with a single. The single is a lanky guy dressed in old clothes who only has four clubs—a putter, a pitching wedge, a five-iron, and a three-wood. And he doesn't even have a golf bag; he's carrying the clubs in his hand as he walks. The two duffers with their splendid equipment scorn him and aren't very friendly to him. But of course they both hit in the high 90s despite cheating amicably here and there, and the lanky guy with the four clubs pins their ears back by twenty strokes. Because he's got one thing they don't. He's good.

Call it being an anti-poser. Is it still a pose, though? Maybe. Like the city biker with a fixie, or a barefooted runner.

Chess puts almost all of the emphasis on the skill and very little on the equipment. If you're a rock climber, on the other hand, you don't want anything but the very best equipment! Safety equipment, at least. Still, with many things, the anti-poser idea has a lot of appeal, at least to me. Don't have the best camera; be the better shooter.

Mike
Flickr page / New Yorker author page

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Aakin: "Collecting and Using are two totally different activities, with an overlap in that they use the same equipment. To do one, you don't have to do the other."

Aaron: "I think obsessing about perfection might not always be reducible to either compensation or 'posing.' It might just be a misinformed mismatch between expected outcomes and what the thing obsessed over is actually capable of doing. I'll confess this about cameras. In the not-so-distant-past I spent a lot of time obsessing over and even cycling through multiple cameras and formats to get the 'best' one because I thought doing so really would help my photography. It wasn't status (nobody pays attention to my cameras anyway), and it wasn't compensation (I'm under no illusions that the 'perfect' camera would somehow give me control I lacked elsewhere). It was just that I really thought this or that feature really would make a substantial difference in my photography. Of course, in nearly all cases, it didn't. Lesson learned. Now I obsess about cameras less."

David Dyer-Bennet: "I don't think I'm finding the 'perfect' product when I spend weeks researching something I'm going to buy. I think I'm making 'the best choice'—which is very different, in my head. (And that's 'best for me' of course.) I can tell you about the things on my 'fault' lists for cameras I had back to at least 1969, too (two of them were definite mistakes, even). A fair amount of the hemming and hawing and waffling is trying to decide which disadvantages will have less impact on my use of the product. I've probably done this most with cameras, but I also do it with computers and software. Well, and houses and cars and kitchen knives and sets of dishes and flatware and pots and pans and cutting boards and mixing bowls and kitchen scales and pliers and soldering irons. Not absolutely everything, though; the two bicycles I bought myself were both quite quick purchases."

JOHN B GILLOOLY: "Did a workshop in Cuba in 2001 with Antonin Kratochvil. He was using an old Nikon SLR—beat to hell. On it was a beaten, dented, 35mm ƒ/1.4 with scratches across the front element. His schtick, or his pose: None of that sh*t matters. Nor even does nailing the exposure or the focus! 'That's all bullshit, man!' He was certainly the anti-poser, but as you say, it was also his schtick. That's how he carried himself and how he wanted to be viewed as a photographer. And I loved his work. And he was a very valuable teacher to me."

Jonathan Morse: "From John Aubrey's Brief Lives: 'He was so eminently learned that all learned men made visits to him, and many of them would desire him to shew them his instruments (in those days mathematicall learning lay much in the knowledge of Instruments, and, as Sir Henry Savile sayd, in doeing of tricks) he would draw out a little Drawer under his Table, and shew them a pair of Compasses with one of the Legges broken; and then for his Ruler, he used a sheet of paper folded double.' 'He' was Rene Descartes."

Sroyon: "To your two underlying causes, I would add a.) what decision theorists call anticipatory regret, and b.) that some of us actually enjoy the process of researching and obsessing in its own right, even if we may not always admit it even to ourselves. Magnus Carlsen wrote some time back about discovering that he doesn't have a chessboard at home!

"The National University of Singapore Museum recently had an open call for a photography exhibition. Nine photographers were selected, myself among them (I honestly didn't expect it; I'm more of a writer and tinkerer than a photographer). My portfolio was shot with a homemade pinhole camera (cardboard box, Ilford photo-paper instead of film). Anyway, I like using digital cameras too, so I will try not to come across as an annoying anti-poser. But even as I type this comment, I realise how difficult it is.  :-) "

R. Edelman: "The topic of posers made me think of the Country and Western description: 'All hat, no cattle.'"

Benjamin Marks: "This can get pretty 'meta' in our culture of many choices. I am thinking of Rivendell bikes. I am totally susceptible to their anti-elite (but secretly elite) posture. They sell well-designed steel, lugged-frame bicycles, but their approach is to sell the idea that their refined, if traditional, designs and materials are superior to the current top-tech carbon fiber doohickies being sold to those mid-pack riders you mentioned in your post. Their marketing substitutes the concept of authenticity for whatever the other guys' claims are for their materials/designs and then flogs the heck out of that. Only jute twine! Pine tar soap for the real man! Headsets with bearings! Ride in Pro-Keds! It seems to me that in part what they are selling is disdain for the stockbroker who rides a $7K bike to average effect. Hey, I am not knocking it. I actually own one of their solid, steel lugged machines and have logged thousands of miles on the thing. So, yeah. I'm susceptible...maybe even a poster child. On the other hand, I have owned really awful bikes too, and of the two choices, I'd rather be on something that is well made. We have the concept of Velben goods, which is really about the social display qualities of luxury goods. I wonder if there is a similar shorthand for the simple pleasure derived from using the best-made tools."

Andrew Molitor: "In sailboat racing you polish the hull of your boat well past the point where it's doing anything to make your boat go faster. On purpose. We know that something like 800 grit is all you need, but everyone goes to 2000 or 4000. Because while it doesn't make the boat go faster, it makes you faster. It takes things out of the equation, like 'is my hull smooth enough.' You know it is. You put in the sweat, you looked at your own reflection. The hull is good. Now you can focus on some of the other several hundred factors. I've heard the same rationale for the 100-megapixel cameras. It's not that anyone needs those pixels, it's that it makes resolution not matter. You can just let it go; you're not going to run out of pixels. These are not entirely rational decisions, but performance has a large psychological, irrational, component."

Comments

[Paul]

Here’s David Foster Wallace on chess and chess pieces:

https://www.youmightfindyourself.com/post/161875466253/david-foster-wallace-playing-chess

[Keith Cartmell]

I've sparked some thoughts on someone else's blog! Pleased and amazed. Thanks Mike!

The posing thoughts could have springboarded to a much longer comment, but when writing I often mind the adage, "brevity is the soul of wit."

No, I don't think you would be a poser buying that, or any other chess set. Nobody would think you were trying to be a better chess player by buying a fancy chess set. Back in the day I eyed some very fancy chess sets. They would be dust collecting show pieces, because I didn't play that often.

I don't get the collecting bug, but I get that people have it. I ended up with a bit of it completely by accident. Down in the basement there's nearly a full set of Isaac Asimov's SF magazines from inception (late 77) to mid 80's that are of no value to anyone except a collector. Or an old Mac Cube and big Cinema display monitor that is gathering dust. I'm still looking for the keyboard and mouse, and then hope to find a collector. They have their uses...

Back to bikes. Yes, for triathlon, lighter is better, and you'll be happier on a better bike. But there is no substitute for time in the saddle to become a better rider.

We see this with cameras. There's lots of people with cameras that are amazingly good, and they still can't take a good photo to save their lives. Are they posers? I think that's a bit of a grey area. I think it comes down to intent. To me, the key question is, are they pretending to be better than they are?

The anti-pose thought is an interesting one I hadn't considered. I put my hand up. Guilty. I love taking photos with two old film cameras, a Canon 7, and a Fujica GW690. MMM all the way!

And those two golfers? Posers through and through.

[Kristine Hinrichs]

I wonder with cameras - does the less skilled photographer benefit more from the “latest and greatest” than the more skilled experienced photographer? That comes to mind because I have lots of friends who are Ironman type age-groupers. For many of them that high end bike can make the difference between meeting the cut-off time or being removed from the race - from finishing or not.

[Rob L.]

I obsess over gear when I don't get to use it - shopping and comparing feels like you're doing something. So looking at missed shots and wondering if another stop, a newer sensor, or another 100mm would make a difference starts the race of 'what if?'

I bought several older DLSRs for Scouts to use when teaching Photography Merit Badge, and was so blown away by the Rebel SL1 - just a simple, fun camera. I keep wondering if I should teach a retro version of the badge, on film...but having sold many of my film cameras, I'd have to get more...

Oh. Turns out I just enjoy playing with the silly things along with the separate hobby of photography.

[Anton Wilhelm Stolzing]

Wow - is this analogy good. Even as a mediocre cyclist, you need good stuff. You do not need Shimano XTR, but yes, it should be a relatively high tier component group.
However, if you are really a crappy cyclist, for whom 5 kilometers distance are already a lot, then you can get by with the cheapest stuff.

[Hansen]

Watch "Free solo" to see your rock climbing example fall apart.

[I will never, ever watch "Free solo." Except if I have to go to hell. --Scared of Heights Mike]

[Mike Plews]

I am currently in the middle of a project that questions the virtues of "good enough" versus "state of the art".
My 20 year old Sony 400 disc changer just fell over dead. It was great in it's day but it is the size of a microwave and is a horror show to program which does not matter because nobody who repairs audio gear will even return my call when I tell them what I need to have fixed.
So I am sitting here patiently ripping 350 or so discs onto my computer with plans to buy a digital audio player (DAP) and drag them over.
I am getting a lot of advice on how to do this, mostly saying that I need to go loseless with a FLAC codec and then convert to whatever format the player I choose uses.
I took a little time to compare discs ripped using lossless and 320kb MP3 and my 73 year old ears can't tell the difference. Both are fine. I suspect Butters can tell them apart but not me.
So when I get all the discs on to a hard drive I'm going to pick up a DAP and get busy.
I am getting some advice on which player to buy and again the wisdom is trying to empty my bank account. Most likely I will land on a Surfans F20 for about $125. Add a zero to that and you are in the ballpark for the recommendations I am getting.
So here goes, a cheap player full of (gulp) MP3 files.
Will probably have to cancel my subscription to Stereophile but I'm a pensioner with hearing aids who needs to be reunited with Oscar Peterson ASAP.
In this case "good enough" feels, well "good enough".

[James]

I now have one of those bikes. It's not triathlon specific. It's an all 'rounder road bike. Which is also kind of too specific for my needs.

I knew I didn't need it. But I wanted it. And that's that. I actually chose a different bike based on an objective analysis of what I needed, and guess what that analysis was right and this cussed insistence that I get what I want was wrong.

(Bike tech doesn't trickle down quite like computers. Today's bike with third-tier components is as good as 15 year ago with top tier. And there are some dimensions where it is better (disc brakes and thru axles are simply better, fight me).)

[Paul.S]

We live in a world of specialization. One could argue how much that has advanced our capability in their various forms and use. The internet has allowed for research ad nauseam. When I was growing up, I played essentially all sports in the same pair of sneakers until they wore out. The local "shoe" store might have had two choices anyway. Now there is a sneaker for every imaginable activity. I was a good athlete. I am not sure I would have been any better in a "specialized" shoe.

[John Abee]

I understand and appreciate the value of light-weight and aerodynamic bicycles when you are racing, but all my bicycles were bought for exercise so I never spent a dime on reduced weight. I enjoyed tinkering with them so I probably overspent on durable frames and nicely made components but added weight was regarded as a feature not a drawback. The bike not the rider.
Mike Plews, I've been down the DAP road (more than once) and i think you'll regret ripping to MP3 vs FLAC. Ripping with EAC (Exact Audio Copy) couldn't be easier. If you are properly fitted with hearing aids, you should appreciate the difference, even if there's a bit of placebo effect in there somewhere. It's tough to get out of your mind that you're listening to a subset of the original signal. The CD sampling frequencies were not chosen arbitrarily. As for good value in a DAP, consider HiBy R3 Pro Sabre. It's around $200 and you'll be delighted.

[Tullio Emanuele]

Many years ago, I decided to try medium format photography. At the time a read a lot about the fact that 35 mm was good enough… not, I look at prints made from medium format and they are better than what I got from 35 mm.

At the time, I could not afford an Hasselblad, so I had a Kiev 80. It looked like an Hasselblad, but was the perfect demonstration of you get what you pay for.

Last year, I finally got a used Hasselblad 500 cm and it’s a pleasure to you use.

Next, maybe I will try a used Leica… are those lenses really so much better than anything else???

[Peter Croft]

It gets back to the old question: want versus need.

If money doesn't matter, and you just want it, then go ahead. If, like me, you're retired and debt free, then OK.

But ask yourself before you buy, do I really need this? Too many times I've bought something and used it for a while, then put it on the shelf. I didn't really need it. Maybe a donation to a worthwhile charity would be a better idea in the long run.

[Thomas Mc Cann]

Posers? Its the little red dot syndrome

[george andros]

I can't recall where I heard it or even if I got the wording right: if you own a camera you must be a photographer; if you own a violin---well, you own a violin.

[Rick in CO]

Hi Mike, after reading some of the comments, and your response, I wonder if those who deride someone as a "poser" ("poseur" from the French) are likely more motivated by envy? As with most things, a higher specification instrument will allow better results regardless of ability. Why not get the best one can afford, as long as it relates to the inner nature of the individual and not merely just buying the "best" or stepping on the GAS? ie. Rather than the "best" camera or bicycle (ect.), get the instrument that achieves the results you desire. I think you went through this on your recent journey to finding your Sigma camera.

[Terry Letton]

Well chess, my introduction was early in my college career when a friend asked me to play with him. After a quick run thru the rules we started. He would let me do whatever I was doing for a while then All of a sudden he would make a couple of moves and I would be done. This went on for a few weeks until another friend clued me in that he was the then current Florida state champion! In subsequent years I have played other less skilled opponents with reasonable success, but not for many years.
On to chess sets. On a shelf in my shop with a substantial layer of sawdust on it is a box containing a custom made set of chess pieces. They were given to me by an artist friend as “payment??” For something I did for him. The problem is they are substantially oversized and would require my building a custom table with an appropriately sized grid for these pieces which is not a priority for space allocation in my very small house which I must admit is somewhat overtaken with old film cameras.

[John]

Reminds me that I have two beautiful chess sets: one I bought in a souk in Damascus, Syria, and one my wife picked up in Tajikistan. I wouldn't even think of using either of them. When I play chess, I use cheap plastic pieces.

Wish I could be the same with photography...

[David L.]

About 5 years ago I bought a used 40+ MP mirrorless full frame camera from the local camera shop. I got home and discovered an SD card inside it. The jpegs were awfully composed. Photos of a loved one were lifeless and dull. It goes to show that an excellent tool doesn’t substitute for a lack of skill, nor of imagination.

[Bassman]

Keith says it right: you can’t be a poser if you’re not posing. I have an Olympus E-M1.3, and I’m a pretty good photographer who uses enough of the features to make it worthwhile. Are my photographs any better because I use that rather than the E-M5.3 I also own? Not at all. Sometimes it’s easier to get the shot, however.

I also drive a Porsche 911 but would never dream of driving it on a track (well maybe dream, but never execute). But I get visceral pleasure out of driving the car, feeling its responsiveness, admiring its lines. Am I posing? I don’t think so; I never brag to anyone about the car, I never race the idiot driver gunning his engine next to me at the stop light. I’m just an old guy who can afford a nice thing and enjoys it.

[vinck]

Well, yes, if you have a nice chess set on display in your home, I believe the most logical assumption is that you play chess, rather than the opposite :)