| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2005 08:11:02 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by bear_music:
In my other online life I moderate a poetry workshop, and the OED is indispensible there...
Robt. |
I'm stupid, I thought CD... CD Player... Audio CD! But now I realise you mean a CD ROM |
The OED as a "book-on-tape" might be a bit much even for me. But maybe if we'd gotten Mr. Olivier to do it ... |
|
|
|
02/21/2005 08:41:50 PM · #52 |
I'll be honest here...and I am a harsh voter...I gave it a 2. Had I caught it while going back through, I'd have bumped it down to a 1.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2005 08:46:25 PM · #53 |
on second thought...I am a harsh voter, but not all the time. There are 5 members who have an average of above 6.6 from me and one, in particular I have given an average vote of 7.25 to Terje. Maybe I just don't like a wide variety of things, but my take is that if you submit 'art' be prepared to get hammered when the voting starts.
No offense meant to anyone btw.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 02:56:13 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Maybe I just don't like a wide variety of things, but my take is that if you submit 'art' be prepared to get hammered when the voting starts. |
David, help me out here. That can be read a couple of ways:
1. "If you submit "art" it will be misunderstood, and it will get hammered in the voting."
2. "If I catch someone trying to sneak "art" into a challenge, I will hammer him/her."
You can see my concern, surely?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 03:20:38 AM · #55 |
BTW, in the "good for a chuckle" category, the comments section of this image has 61 comments in it, and one thing that is striking is that a significant number of these people commented that as soon as they saw the image they suspected or "knew" that it was mine.
IMO, this proves beyond a doubt that the image is at some level effective as a "self portrait". Not that this is either here nor there, but it does make me grin.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 03:38:57 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
... this image has 61 comments in it, and one thing that is striking is that a significant number of these people commented that as soon as they saw the image they suspected or "knew" that it was mine.
IMO, this proves beyond a doubt that the image is at some level effective as a "self portrait" ... |
Forgive them, they know not what they do. |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 05:19:32 AM · #57 |
Robert
i dont know much about poetry but i really enjoyed reading the 2 u put out here
in this regard i was thinking it would be a nice challenge if they put out a poem here and the challenge would be to reflect it in a photograph
about ur selfportrait
without doubt its a very out of the box portrait in the same time u used
a clichee topic to express it..soo im still the chewing the contradiction
one not so 'funny' comment to it wich revealed a selfportrait in its self i guess
wether ur pictures are understood and appreciated or not, they always are suitable for some food for thoughts
anyway ure unique and thats good to me
____________________________________________________________________
quote: everybody is unique exept me
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 05:57:01 AM · #58 |
The problem with thinking outside the box is that it's an unpopular place to be. It took decades for the impressionists to get anyone to look at their art, and the last group of people to do so was the established art community in Paris. Yet art moves ahead only when people are daring enough to think outside the box. I think Robert is doing this site a great service by bringing a unique perspective. But it is not always realistic to expect good scores.
Personally, I was surprised at the high percentage of head shots in the self-portrait area. And I usually scored those that were a little outside the box high, just for making us think a bit. I'm not so sure I did that with Robert's entry, because I could not see the artist in the work, at all. But in my very short tenure at this site I've seen a bit of Robert's work and exchanged comments with him; and in retrospect, I find this photo to have improved by as much as two points just by being able to make the connection.
The first question a person asks a child of a picture is 'what is it?' We want to make meaning of things. And I'm guessing not everyone is up to the task of making difficult connections. I usually work hard at it, but I saw Robert's image near the end of voting and I was much too tired to do the work. Nor have I been at the site long enough for it to have been possible to connect the work to the artist. I don't believe it would have been possible to see the work in a strongly positive way without having some idea about who the artist might be. Not all of us understand intuitively that only certain photographers would take a photo like this and find it beautiful, symbolic, and relevant to a portraiture competition.
I've got to thank Robert for starting this thread, because I think that so long as there are people who think like Robert at this site - trying to push the boundaries of the art in a different dimension - the site will remain lively, dynamic, and relevant. |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 07:08:59 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by srbrubaker:
I don't believe it would have been possible to see the work in a strongly positive way without having some idea about who the artist might be. Not all of us understand intuitively that only certain photographers would take a photo like this and find it beautiful, symbolic, and relevant to a portraiture competition.
|
So, if I had submitted a similar image, and we both put our names on it, Robts would have scored higher (you mentioned 2 points) just because its Robts and he is an artist whilst I'm not seen as one? Interesting theory, 'artists' can post what they want but unless the site has given you the 'artist' tag you have to follow the rules more closely by posting portraits for the portrait challenge and not post macro shots in a landscape challenge.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 07:35:52 AM · #60 |
I'm one of the people who gave this a 1.
The photo in question - its just way too deepful and meaning for little me. I had no idea what bear was on about. The title did not mean anything to me at all and that coupled with a photo of some raindrops went way over my head.
Most of us are 'simple' people on this site, if a challenge is to take a self potrait then we want to see a human being in it and not somthing we cannot ralate to.
The photo was good but not in the context of the challenge.
As for all the comments you received I suspect this was due to one of the discussion threads about the self potrait challenge? It was not hard to identify which was your photo.
When I take a photo for a challenge I try to take one that is different from the majority of entries but I still try and keep within the challenge guidlines. I was hammered in the self portrait challenge but then I knew it would not appeal to the vast majority of voters. At the end of the day you have to do what you have to do and be comfortable with it.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 07:48:27 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Originally posted by srbrubaker:
I don't believe it would have been possible to see the work in a strongly positive way without having some idea about who the artist might be. Not all of us understand intuitively that only certain photographers would take a photo like this and find it beautiful, symbolic, and relevant to a portraiture competition.
|
So, if I had submitted a similar image, and we both put our names on it, Robts would have scored higher (you mentioned 2 points) just because its Robts and he is an artist whilst I'm not seen as one? Interesting theory, 'artists' can post what they want but unless the site has given you the 'artist' tag you have to follow the rules more closely by posting portraits for the portrait challenge and not post macro shots in a landscape challenge. |
Yes. And No. We understand photos in the context of a person's body of work. There is less requirement to depend on this when the photo is simple and direct, but when the meaning requires some work, it becomes important. When we know what to expect from an artist, we have a shortcut to understand their work. This cuts both ways. Artists on this site with strong and immediately identifiable styles sometimes get bumped up because people connect the work with them and identify with that body of work. In the case of Robert's work, it explains something about him. And when I understand that, the photo makes sense to me. It makes a connection. So if you took this same photo and I understood the same things about you as I do about Robert, I'd score you better too. Ultimately, how we judge art is always about how it makes a connection with us . There are generalizations one can make about what methods achieve this better or worse, but this is the ultimate metric.
Message edited by author 2005-02-22 07:57:04. |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 07:52:08 AM · #62 |
| I gave you a 7. I know what a metaphorical self-portrait is but many people on this site are not well-read. They don´t understand abstract and symbolic thinking. Mona |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 07:59:54 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
David, help me out here. That can be read a couple of ways:
1. "If you submit "art" it will be misunderstood, and it will get hammered in the voting."
2. "If I catch someone trying to sneak "art" into a challenge, I will hammer him/her."
|
I meant -- If you submit "art", it will be unappreciated, and it will get hammered in the voting.
Sorry for being a bit harsh earlier.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 10:06:23 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Originally posted by srbrubaker:
I don't believe it would have been possible to see the work in a strongly positive way without having some idea about who the artist might be. Not all of us understand intuitively that only certain photographers would take a photo like this and find it beautiful, symbolic, and relevant to a portraiture competition.
|
So, if I had submitted a similar image, and we both put our names on it, Robts would have scored higher (you mentioned 2 points) just because its Robts and he is an artist whilst I'm not seen as one? |
Isn't this roughly the same way "artists" get gallery space and high prices at auction? |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 10:45:16 AM · #65 |
Brubaker, Utro started the thread, not me, and I think Utro for that,. it's been fascinating. Also, I didn't "expect" a good score, I'm just surprised by the number of 1's and 2's.
Owens, the comments were flooding in from the get-go, it's the comments that got me discussing it in the first place after it was clear the image was doomed score-wise.
On the subject of "artist-based" voting, there are many shooters in this place whose work is very recognizable. It can't be helped.
Regarding DNMTC (does not meet the challenge), consider how in "Pink" (to choose an example at random, this happens in every challenge) there's an image with a respectable score that doesn't even come close to meeting the challenge (shoot an image the primary color of which is pink). Why? Because the primary color of the image is overwhelmingly blue, with just some bink blush on the tips of the rose petals. The comments indicate that people were aware of this, and they have people saying , essentially, "Lovely image, a nice respite from all this pink, DNMTC but I gave it a nice score anyway."
As many have suggested, one of the reasons I even DO stuff like this (enter a challenge with a weird image) is to spark debate and exchange of ideas, which after all is what the site's about. So I'm pleased, anyway. It's been real interesting.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 11:06:28 AM · #66 |
I haven't read the whole thread, but I look at it like this...
DPC is a primarily a site dedicated to learning how to use digital cameras. The challenges force us to use techniques or subjects that we might not otherwise try. If we are asked to shoot a portrait, then the expectation is that we are to show a literal portrait to the best of our ability, and ideally in an interesting and appealing manner.
There are a number of experienced photographers on this site who know their cameras inside and out, and aren't as concerned with the technical aspects. For them, it might be more interesting to try and redefine what a portrait is. If this were a site full of experienced photographers, then that wouldn't be a problem- we would assume that everyone could take a standard portrait, and maybe focus more on the message. Here, the reaction is more likely to be "Hey, you didn't tackle the problem you were assigned," and the photo will get clobbered. In the context of this learning site, a photo of a twig in the fog (no matter how good) does little to show mastery of portraiture. |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 11:08:30 AM · #67 |
You can't judge the quality of work by how it does on DPC... This thread pops up almost every challenge when someone excercises their creativity and doesn't consider their audience.
Look at the number of threads people start which say things like "in the next road signs challenge I'm going to mark down anything which doesn't have a large part of the frame consumed by a well lit road sign." People as a whole are very literal here.
You do good work, and should continue doing the work that best defines you. But you shouldn't be surprised (or worried) when it doesn't do well on DPC. It seems to me that your work would find a different audience that you may appreciate on a site like Photo.Net. By all means, keep doing the DP Challenges, but if you're seeking a less literal audience you might want to evaluate the many other photographic communities which each have their unique slants on life.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 11:25:24 AM · #68 |
I'm becoming a bit despondent by this thread, first of all we get the it's 'outside the box' then moves through the people like it very literal.
These replies all seem to sympahise but be negative at the same time, it seems everyone is stating in some way that on top of the editing rules theres an unwritten set of rules and if you break them wow betide you.
I think there is far more creativity and imagination within the comunity than is given credit, the 'box' will alway's be a moving and evolving concept and i doubt anybody who takes part in the arts want's to be labelled or boxed.
Keep it up Rob i've no doubt you will
Pete |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 11:40:38 AM · #69 |
Hubbel,
My work was validated long ago, both in the marketplace (professional photography) and in the "art" world (exhibits, prizes, and sales), so I don't need that from here. I'm here because I'm a "teacher" from way back and I LIKE the focus on technique and composition, it gives me stuff to spout off about. I also like the personal challenge of trying to be "myself" within (or apparently sometimes outside) the constraints of the challenges.
No worries. I'm not unhappy. This is, like, a "philosophical interlude" and I see it as a Good Thing all around.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-02-22 11:41:20.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 11:42:21 AM · #70 |
| I hear many tiny violins playing..how odd. |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 11:50:27 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I hear many tiny violins playing..how odd. |
Tinnitus. ;)
Message edited by author 2005-02-22 11:50:53.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 11:55:57 AM · #72 |
Here's to all those who submit "out of the box" photos, knowing they will get hammered. If they open the eyes of a few, the beating is worth it. My boss's favorite (somewhat) tongue-in-cheek quote is "the beatings will continue until morale improves." the DPC corollary is "the beatings will continute until enlightenment improves." Don't hold your breath, LOL.
Robert, I left you a comment a day or two back... keep up the good work, and keep up your well-considered, fact-based, intelligent responses in the forums. You contribute greatly!
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 11:59:51 AM · #73 |
Thanx Kirbic...
To rip off Robert Frost,
Breathes there a dude who isn't moved
when he finds his work is understood
and not entirely disapproved
by the SC of his neighborhood?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 12:17:27 PM · #74 |
I have a brother-in-law who is an academic (not that there is anything wrong with that) and every time I go there for dinner he tries to give me a glass of undoubtedly expensive red wine. As my pallette is geared towards coke I tell him he is wasting his time as it will be unappreciated by me, but he never stops trying.
I find with every challenge I am seeing new things and maybe next time I might even try a sip.
Rob, you are a cordon-bleu chef serving steak in a MacDonalds:)
(never trust anyone in a bow-tie) |
|
|
|
02/22/2005 12:31:19 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by guroos:
Rob, you are a cordon-bleu chef serving steak in a MacDonalds:) |
LOL- I believe he served 'stick,' not 'steak,' but I love the analogy. ;-) |
|
