| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/24/2003 02:10:52 PM · #1 |
I had just made a lengthy post to steer the discussion into whether provocation in art is good or bad (i think it's good). Someone responded to that and i wanted to respond to her comment but next thing i know the thread is locked because the thread was "too much about specific users". No, it wasn't !
What i wanted to say to KarenB, whom i respect, is that it is very difficult here to be honest without being accused of making personal attacks or being confrontational. As an example, i wanted to cite her portraits. Last year she posted a link to them and Zeissman gave constructive criticism but on the whole was negative. Then Zeissman got told by somebody that he was always negative and difficult. Actually, i agreed with Zeissman assessment but knew it was better to shut up. Karen, a few weeks ago you posted a portrait of your son that just blew me away. It also blew me away how much you had grown in portraiture in less than a year! But why is it that here one can only be honest when it is positive and not when it is less than positive or negative???
And here is my original post:
""Magnetic, i disagree with you. Paganini is one of my favorite people on this site. I respect his opinion - sometimes he's right on and sometimes he's totally off the wall. Doesn't bother me. What i like about him is exactly that he is confrontational and provocative. It's much better to be provoked than having this feel-good atmosphere that's rather meaningless and that really doesn't help anyone to get BETTER. Some of these forum threads here read like syrupy Hallmark Moments. To get a certain crappy score from paganini that's more meaningful to me than to get the same score from some beancounter because they didn't feel you met the bloody challenge or because the border isn't to their liking.
If debates with paganini get polarized then really all parties involved are to blame. I had a minor debate with him the other day about interpretation of nature and though he didn't change my opinion and i didn't change his, it did not end up as a shouting match. In fact, i enjoyed the little exchange.
If i were to get a 'that's vomit' comment from paganini, i wouldn't be so childish to complain to the Admins. But i would send him a lengthy 'WTF' PM :)
I remember the great polarizing debate about paganini's theory of voting (1 i don't like it - 10 i like it) and he gave excellent arguments to justify his position. The only problem (and it was THAT which created the polarizing debate) was that he brought home that most people here (and, very fairly, he didn't exclude himself!) really do not have the expertise to really, critically, judge pictures and aren't the discerning art critics that they would like themselves to believe. The truth hurts, doesn't it? :) The funny thing is, recently i have become very aware that i have unconsciously adopted paganini's voting scheme without the radical 1/10 scoring (and suspect that really everybody is doing more or less the same :) ROTFL ""
|
|
|
|
05/24/2003 02:14:24 PM · #2 |
I apologize for the inconvenience caused by my locking the thread, however, many of the latest posts in that thread were discussing the posting style of a particular user and whether that user is or is not a "troll." That is against site policy and I stand by my decision to lock the discussion, especially since a warning had already been posted in the thread.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2003-05-24 14:17:06.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2003 02:20:00 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Journey:
What i wanted to say to KarenB, whom i respect, is that it is very difficult here to be honest without being accused of making personal attacks or being confrontational. |
It's very easy to be honest without being distasteful or being confrontational. It's called 'tact'. Anyone who wants to can do it. Some choose not to, and are therefore labelled as being confrontational. All it takes is a little thought. I'm not suggesting that anyone 'change' their ways to conform to this.
What I DO think is useful about being tactful is that you will usually be taken more seriously. So, it all depends on your own objectives as to what type of comments you make. If you wanna be taken seriously, then you should word your posts in such a way as to not offend anyone.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2003 02:48:14 PM · #4 |
Journey - here's the 'paganini' style of response to your post (for demo purposes only - brace yourself, i dont mean it):
"if you weren't such an ignorant pandering lying deceptive whore, you wouldnt be having so much trouble with these issues. But you and all the idiots as stupid as you will never wake up and realize how much you suck :)."
here's the 'civil' style of response, now:
"i respectfully disagree. it seems to me that there are a continuum of communication styles in the world and some people need work on theirs. i, personally, feel that i give concrete honest and specific advice to those who ask, and rarely has anyone been confused as to whether or not i'm impugning them, as opposed to helping them.
There are enough people on this site that understand diplomacy, that, by contrast, it is painfully clear that the person you are defending really needs to either work on the comm skills if their motives are in fact noble, or they need to get a different pasttime than just slagging people to get a rise out of them :)."
See the difference? it's clear when you contrast them side by side like that :).
Message edited by author 2003-05-24 14:51:21.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2003 02:52:23 PM · #5 |
Changed my mind... I ain't getting involved...
Message edited by author 2003-05-24 14:54:22.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2003 02:52:41 PM · #6 |
Both setz AND journey have a point.
Setz's point is easily seen and widely accepted.
Jorney's point requires a much less common empathy for the rigours of a very particular artistic involvement.
I lean toward Journey in this matter, because, IMHO, hers is the more 'rewarding' route, in terms of what we can achieve, if only we'd be willing to care more about what we love than harmonious reduction.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2003 03:17:49 PM · #7 |
| I realize I stepped up in that other thread without knowing everything or all the history. I will try to avoid that in the future ;-) :-) |
|
|
|
05/24/2003 03:42:31 PM · #8 |
Clubjuggle: i felt frustrated because i wanted to lead the debate into a more meaningful area. I also felt that the thread got locked because i spoke in defense of someone's style whereas there already had been many comments made calling this person a troll and that was not reason enough for locking the thread. My apologies if i misunderstood your intent.
Setzler: i really feel annoyed that someone complains to the Admins post about "looks like vomit to me" offending comment. How is this more offending than the oft made comment "this sucks" when you really know that person probably did his darndest on the submission? :) A few people here have the ability to really give constructive helpful criticism and be honest at the same time. Many others though are merely political correct instead; those comments aren't very helpful and actually just patronizingly offensive (comments in the vein of "this is really interesting, very nice, good job, 4).
You do learn more from the hard taskmasters, as zeuszen so eloquently put forth. They motivate you more to try your hardest.
Magnetic: i AM an 'ignorant pandering lying deceptive whore' but not on everything, not all the time, and not with everybody ;) So, your comment didn't shock or offend me at all :) Wasn't it Eleanor Rooseveldt who said "No one can demean you without your permission". There's a lot of wisdom in that statement.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2003 04:50:39 PM · #9 |
"this sucks" is just as bad as "this looks like vomit". people who leave "this sucks" and nothing else definitely aren't welcome on DPC :).
Re the concept of having a thick skin, i tend to agree in general - that's why i'm pretty much unaffected by what's said in these forums, etc. My attempts to engage said person thus far have been driven primarily by the same kind of motivation that would lead to my trying to reach out to a sick or hurt animal - trying to show it that the world means no harm and that there's no need for it to take on a combat posture. however, i've seen that to be pointless, so i shan't waste any more effort on it :).
BUT there are lots of people who are newly developing their experience with this type of stuff, and there's no reason that THEIR experiences should be tainted or scarred by mean, hurtful, or amoral people. since the vast majority of people that DO populate this site seem to be able to regulate their behavior, I must conclude that this other person is the one with the deficiencies who must either ADJUST to norms, or be regulated.
Again, being honest isnt the problem. It's the hyperbole, combined with the almost universal dismissiveness of contrary evidence, combined with the personal attacks, all neatly wrapped up in a bundle of not ultimately offereing a useful solution to the person who's been blasted. all of those add up to troll behavior. you can also call it 'being mean', 'being unnecessarily rude', 'causing strife for no useful purpose'. all the same thing. there ARE sites where that is the order of the day. many in fact. but this isn't one of them. i dont think it takes a rocket scientist to see the difference between being honest and being a 'jerk'. :)
Message edited by author 2003-05-24 16:54:13. |
|
|
|
05/24/2003 05:06:52 PM · #10 |
It's also very important to remember that we do have kids posting pictures to DPC. Telling a 12 year old that their image looks like vomit is not going to be a useful comment. In fact, a comment that wouldn't phase an older, more experienced photographer could destroy a less experienced one. Try to recall what it was like when you started taking your first photos. You were probably scared and nervous when showing them to others for feedback. If someone told you, "this is crap, why the heck did you even think of taking this picture?" I think it would probably have caused you some distress. You may even have given up on the process. Joe DiMaggio of the New York Yankees baseball club said, "remember that someone is always seeing your for the first time, and the last time." It's the same thing here. You never know if this is their first image, or their last. Treat your fellow photographers with respect. Treat them the way you wish to be treated.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2003 05:31:09 PM · #11 |
Yeah, tact. That is a good word. Sadly it is being followed by fewer and fewer people anymore. It seems that there are more people that insist on devending their right to say anything they want anyway they want. I don't get it. To me that attitude is perfectly fine when you are around your own personal friends where you know how statements are going to be taken and it is altogether different when you are participating in a public forum. Is this really that difficult to understand and respect? Like others have already mentioned, you can still say how you feel but a certain amount of tact and forethought should be applied to HOW it is said.
T
|
|
|
|
05/24/2003 08:29:10 PM · #12 |
Wow... look what happens when you step out for a couple of hours! :P
Journey: Thank you for your post. I also recall Zeissman's post that time about the greyness of the B&W's. It was blunt, but not rude. That is exactly the difference I was referring to. Thanks for reminding me of it as an example. In fact, this is a good opportunity to re-thank Zeiss' for his post. It really was helpful, and .. although at first I was a bit deflated for not getting all "great! wow!" comments that I gave myself for my own work, I sat back and took the critisism constructively. Thank you for seeing improvement. :0)
I believe tact can be blunt. But my point was that I personally do not enjoy confrontation. I prefer mutual conversation. :0)
|
|
|
|
05/24/2003 09:49:09 PM · #13 |
Karen, i didn't say i saw improvement; that would have been condescending. I said you had GROWN ENORMOUSLY in portraiture in a short year - in 8 months to be more precise. Really, bravo!
Btw, what do :0) and :P mean exactly? I do not have the fluency in netspeak to catch all the nuances :)
My point is that we should be tolerant of a variety of styles of expression, both in pictures and in the written word. If you can't take it, just ignore it. I don't particular care for getting meaningless, sugar-coated PC comments and beancounter comments. Should i complain? No, i just ignore them.
There is this tendency nowadays among many people who have read some coffee-table books about Van Gogh and 'adore' him to think that IF ONLY he had lived in this era, poor Vincent would have been UNDERSTOOD. I don't believe that would be the case at all. No matter what era he would have lived, he would have been misunderstood because Van Gogh is his own man. When he lived in Paris and frequented Toulouse Lautrec's parties, he would be generally ridiculed and scorned. By great artists, like Lautrec and Gauguin, who were very open-minded and had themselves tossed conventions out of the window. Here is an interesting little tidbit: About 8 years ago i saw on French television an interview with Jeanne Calment who was then sometimes like 115-123 years old (i forgot her exact age but she was incredibly old and she was a heavy smoker well into her nineties :) She had grown up in Arles and she was the only person alive who had actually known Van Gogh. Imagine that! So, each time this woman was interviewed invariably the question came up Hey, tell us about Van Gogh! She said that Van Gogh was very ugly, he stank, and his manners sucked. If VG would have lived today, he would still be very ugly, still stink, and have horrible manners and the coffeetable-book adorers would not like him one bit! But what a great artist! Van Gogh wouldn't do very well on net forums either because he would be just too passionate for being particularly tactful.
Let it be! |
|
|
|
05/24/2003 10:08:40 PM · #14 |
You make some good points Journey. I agree with alot of it.
Thanks for the compliments. :)
:0) = a smile with a big nose I guess LOL
:P = sorta sticking out the tongue to show humor, jest, tease, or even unsurety, etc.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2003 10:15:15 PM · #15 |
I understand now. Thank you.
Originally posted by Journey:
... |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 10:50:02 AM EDT.
