|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2007 02:33:45 PM · #1 |
OPâs RULES: This is a very long post, and you are free not to read it. However, please do NOT comment on this thread unless you read the entire thing and made an honest attempt to at least understand my point of view. I will gladly let this thread fizzle out rather than engage in the usual pointless misunderstandings.
The Myth of the Passive Viewer
There is a widespread belief here that the viewer is passive. The viewer simply takes in whatever the photograph provides. The photographer, as a result, must be completely calculating: his photograph must be precisely crafted to deliver the maximum impact to this passive viewer. That is why the âsubjectâ is so important here. It is this âsubjectâ that is being delivered to the viewer, and all technical decisions (which are really esthetic decisions) are geared toward that delivery:
-sharp focus on the subject
-a balanced range of light on the subject, with no overexposed highlights or detail-hiding shadows
-placement of the subject on âthe thirdsâ, the thought being that this placement provides emphasis
-leading lines leading the eyes to the subject
-a background that doesnât distract from the subject or no background at all
Like any good myth, this belief is so ingrained that many people cannot even discuss this issue with me. They are unable to understand that there might be any other esthetic criteria. Instead, they say that there is a genre called âartsyâ or âfine artâ which neatly holds any photos that they donât understand, photos that donât really matter. Therefore, when I talk about composition, they think composition means âthe arrangement that best emphasizes the subject." When I talk about feeling, they think I mean either âthe feeling that the subject is experiencingâ if the subject is a person or âthe feeling that the subject is conveyingâ if the subject is symbolic (like a fallen leaf) or a story (like a man standing by a grave). When I talk about beauty, they think I mean the beauty of the subject. And so on.
Well, I am NOT talking about the subject, unless I specifically say so. I am talking about the photograph. And you can argue that every photograph has a subject if you want. I am not interested in that argument. The important point is that even if a photograph has a subject, a photograph and its subject are two different things (otherwise, long distance relationships would be so much easier).
This seems like an obvious enough point, but it is obscured by the Myth of the Passive Viewer. The viewer is so passive that all he can do is sit there and wait for his subject to be delivered on a platter. The true believers will say of course the photograph is different than the subject. That is why the photographer must work so hard to make the photograph disappear, to create the illusion that the subject is really there, in the lap of the Passive Viewer.
My thesis, however, is that the viewer is active. The viewer actively interprets and imagines as he views. The esthetic consequences, the critical consequences, of this difference are tremendous, as evidenced by the tremendous difference between the scores I give and the average scores the community gives. I think itâs easy enough to prove my thesis. The hard part is convincing you of the consequences. But letâs do this in an orderly fashion.
Proof of the Active Viewer
The viewer has a brain. For those of you who are religious, the viewer has a soul. For those of you who are sentimental, the viewer has a heart. Are your brain, soul and heart purely passive? Donât you use them to interact with the world around you? Donât you think they affect the way you see things? The primary purpose of optical illusions is to show that your brain makes assumptions about what you see without you even realizing. Your brain has decided object A is bigger than object B even though itâs not. The true believer will say that the viewer simply puts out his brain, heart and soul to be affected by the picture. The photographer (the only active party here) will pick certain clichés designed to affect your heart a certain way: the lone object apart from the crowd, David and Goliath, the curled up in a corner image, etc.
I simply propose that even if youâre using a cliché, you are asking your viewer to be active. The viewer must be aware of the cliché and then connect it to your image. And once you make this admission, it is simply a matter of degree. How active do you want the viewer to be? The more activity you demand of the viewer, the more you risk that the viewer will fail. But I submit that assuming your viewer is passive can also cause you to fail! The only reason it is currently succeeding so well is because there are so many believers in the myth⦠and a myth is only as strong as its believers.
And therefore your reply is that there are many believers and therefore you will touch more people with the myth then without it. And youâre right! For the moment. The trouble is that passive-viewer artists are forgotten, lost to history, lost even to the next fashion, the next trend. But of course, that doesnât mean you canât be one anyway! Itâs generally more lucrative, after all. My goal is not to destroy this mindset, only to put it in its proper place.
The Differences Between Passive Viewer and Active Viewer Esthetics
As an active viewer who comments as such, I have been told that I can read any interpretation into an image, the implication being that my comments only reveal my own imagination and in no way judge the quality of the image itself. First of all, it is impossible to objectively judge the quality of an image. You can only score based on your personal reaction to that image. This mistaken notion of objective grading follows from the Myth of the Passive Viewer. After all, if the viewer is passive, then it doesnât matter which viewer is looking at it. Therefore, you can come up with one objective score that correlates to the predictable reaction of this passive viewer. Thus, the proud comments I often see about how peopleâs personal rankings match the overall rankings. Iâve wondered how people could be proud about such a thing, and now I realize why: they believe the myth.
HOWEVER, it is still possible to score an image, as I have said, based on your personal reaction. And you are not losing your objectivity by discarding the myth. You never had it to begin with. Why? Because there is no viewer more active than the judging viewer! The most fanatical believers, judging according to the Passive Viewer Myth, are not being passive at all. They are imagining a passive viewer, not being one! As a matter of fact, they are hardly letting the photo affect them at all. Instead, they are scrutinizing, analyzing, seeing how it fits into their theory, trying to guess how it would affect a passive viewer, and yes it is only a guess. They cannot for one moment become the passive viewer. They can only do their best impersonation of this mythic being. They are no more the passive viewer than that fat guy ringing a bell is Santa Claus.
The objection I most often get to the active viewer is that it forces the photographer to be passive. But this is not true! I have the same notion of art as you do: the artist must imagine a viewer and shape his art for that viewer, using all the skills he possesses, the more skills the better. I have the same respect for the skills and knowledge it takes to be a photographer that you have. My point is that if you believe in the Passive Viewer Myth, then you are misapplying those skills and that knowledge, because you are imagining a viewer that does not exist. Imagining an active viewer does not reduce your responsibility, it increases it geometrically. Let me talk about that more specifically.
Have you ever noticed that The Simpsons has a different rhythm than most other sitcoms? Most sitcoms develop one joke at a time, build up to each joke and then play a laugh track. The Simpsons will often hit you with three gags successively. The first gag may or may not have been developed, but the next gag is a surprise, a conceptual leap, and so is the one after that. The writers are imagining an active viewer, a viewer who gets the first joke, perhaps saw it coming, and requires more complex stimuli to be truly surprised into a laugh. This is a demanding viewer, not a viewer asking to be lulled into familiar feelings.
Once you drop the Passive Viewer Myth, you are no longer trying to recreate the same old thing as faithfully as possible. Instead, you are faced with an active viewer, you are playing to a live audience. The pressure is on. The results are unpredictable. You are now tasting the excitement that drives a true artist. True art is not a privileged snooty activity, it is dangerous, gritty and real. Some artists are driven mad by it. All pay a price, emotionally, mentally and spirituality.
The Active Viewer Esthetic is more complex, because the active viewer is more complex. He may react in a number of different ways, and you should prepare an image that will reward some or all of those reactions. This is why art is so often considered obscure, or to be more kind, enigmatic and mysterious. Clues that donât immediately point to a solution will intrigue the active viewer. He will enjoy coming up with his own solution. Unfortunately, this enigma is often mimicked by Passive Viewer artists when they try to create an âartisticâ image because they think that obscurity by its very nature is artistic. It is actually a trap any artist can fall into. Be careful! When you shrug and say that as long as you make it âweirdâ then the active viewer will find something to like in it, then you are now committing the worst artistic sin of all: ignoring your viewer completely. Of all an artistâs mistakes this is the one that most feeds into the Passive Viewer Myth.
Do not ignore clichés and standard expectations, defy them! Shift them, twist them, force the active viewer to pay attention to your image. Learn about the history of your art form, and of other art forms, not so that you can mimic the past, but so you can move the past forward. The active viewer will recognize many of the tropes of the past, and wants to see how you are changing them. Donât let him down! Donât forget what Blues singers made of gospel music. Donât forget what Jazz musicians made of the Blues.
That being said, the Passive Viewer Myth is not without its uses. After all, there is great commercial potential for such images. They fit the needs of advertisers who are, after all, selling the subject of the photo, and they fit the needs of magazines who, after all, must sell themselves. What I want you to see, however, is that Passive Viewer images are just one little genre, âCommercial Imagesâ might be a good name for it. They are not the be all and end all of photography.
So go ahead and vote those Passive Viewer images high if they fit the criteria well. But also learn to recognize when a photograph is not playing by those rules, and judge it fairly. Instead of pretending to be a certain kind of viewer, be yourself and simply look at the image. Allow yourself all the associations that the image creates in you. Stop trying to decide whether the artist intended it or not. Leave such concerns to the artist. If the image moves you, inspires you, conjures a story or a feeling, then give it a high score. It succeeded with the active viewer, i.e., YOU. This is not a secondary accomplishment. Itâs the best a photo can hope for.
And then thereâs comments. Well, if you are up to analysis you can still talk about technicals and how they affected your reaction. Remember, itâs not like only some shots have technicals and others donât! Every shot has DOF, every shot has a shutter speed, an aperture setting, a white balance, a tonal range. Instead of thinking that there is an ideal version of each of these things, aka âgood technicalsâ, think instead about the real versions of these things sitting before you and how they have affected your viewing experience. Stop thinking of technicals as being good or bad!
And now, when you talk of composition, talk about how it affected your experience. When you talk of feeling, talk about how the experience felt. When you talk of beauty, talk of the beauty of the experience. Changing from a passive viewer to an active viewer means changing from noun to verb. Forget the subject, subjects are a dime a dozen. Talk about the experience of looking at this subject in this photograph.
I realize that Iâve only given you the barest skeleton of an approach to commenting on photographs, but if youâve followed me so far then Iâve laid the foundation for us to talk further. And that is whatâs been frustrating me here so much: the inability to even begin to talk. I hope that by explaining how I see things, I can begin to talk to some of you. Just some⦠I donât have any grand illusions!
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 02:49:37 PM · #2 |
I usually consider photography as a form of communication - a conversation if you will. That then is a two way thing, that requires an engaged viewer.
But I personally think of commercial or popular images as being less about a passive viewer, as being a lowest common denominator. Cliches are cliches because everyone understands them (for large values of everyone)
They communicate ideas quickly and easily to the largest amount of people. You get your point across. It isn't poetry, it isn't subtle, but people get it.
Winning here is a numbers game. It's a popularity contest, or who can hit the buttons of the most people - you have to pitch to the lowest common denominator as a result. The subtle, or complex or the thought provoking is always going to find a few people who adore it, a few people who loathe it and a whole lot of people who don't get it or missed the point or missed the subtle ideas. A lowest common denominator cliche will be read and understood by a lot of people, quickly and easily - so will score highly - again that's the commercial, easy to grasp genre, that fares so well here.
But the emotive, interesting and more engaging image will never be all things to everyone. They might be the more satisfying, more rewarding images to make, but almost by definition, they won't have a large audience.
It's why Tom Clancy makes money. Or James Patterson.
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 14:50:38.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 02:57:24 PM · #3 |
| I tend to agree with what Gordon just said. I also would like to add that not everyone is capable of being active at all times. People get tired and after voting on say 150 photos in a row that 151st one might get the passive treatment especially if the easiest things we associate as having quality/skill isn't there (i.e. sharpness, colorful, etc). |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 02:58:48 PM · #4 |
To communicate a common language must be known. These so called passive viewers are most usually those with a limited common language. It is not that they are not trying to understand, but that they have nothing to base an understanding on. The clichés and technicals are not a stunbling block for them, they are the rudiments of a language that is not spoken fluently.
Just as you have laid out a few definitions in the hope of being able to communicate better with those around you, those you label the passive viewers are grasping at definitions to better understand and be able to communicate with the photographer.
It may become tiresome to hear someone talk about how an image fits the 'rule of thirds', but that is a solid, difinable aspect of the communication. Knocking aside the 'rudamentary' definitions leaves them floundering, with no common definitions on which to build a further understanding.
The 'passive' viewer is not someone that is not trying to understand. But just as I would not be able to participate in a conversation spoken in french, this viewer is not able to participate. Given time, I would begin to pick up a few basic phrases and start to understand -- but it takes the passive participation to allow that basic understanding to begin. Only after I have taken in the basics of the language can I hope to be able to actively participate in any conversation -- and the same hold true for the viewer who has learned a few fundemantals and has found a liking for a few clichés.
David
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:25:06 PM · #5 |
| I can smell what you're cookin'. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:34:26 PM · #6 |
The fact that so many people do not get quite a bit of the humor in The Simpsons should tell you something about how many people are 'passive viewers' and how many are actually analyzing what it is they are seeing.
That said, submitting photos that are only going to connect with a relative handful of people who are actively engaged in mentally dissecting everything that comes across their senses is a sure fire way to score low.
If you're goal is to win ribbons, embrace the Passive Viewer Myth and stick with what works.
If you're goal is to seek out like souls and engage in philosophical discussions about the nature of art and beauty, PM Posthumous.
;)
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 15:35:26. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:46:31 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
The fact that so many people do not get quite a bit of the humor in The Simpsons should tell you something about how many people are 'passive viewers' and how many are actually analyzing what it is they are seeing. |
The Simpsons are not even a good example. They do the same things over and over just to appease what posthumous refers to as the "passive viewer" and what Gordon refers to as the "lowest common denominator". Sure they add lots of things that may not register with everyone but it's that balance that has allowed the show to remain on the air for so long. This is what is often lacking (sometimes by choice) in many of the photos that posthumous' feels is a strong photo but doesn't receive the widespread appeal.
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 15:48:24. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:51:02 PM · #8 |
One other thing that you have to know is what you want out of this.
You're going to get very little in tne way of hard line appraisal on a visceral level from an honest standpoint when you have to vote on anywhere from 25 to 200 entries.
The ones that grab you in an instant and withstand what will still be a quick scrutiny for the second go 'round are the ones that will do well in a challenge here.
This system by its design does not encourage careful consideration of each and every image, and an awful lot of decent, but not great work gets blown by on a regular basis.
This is not the place to develop your aesthetic skills IMO.
You might get lucky and do so if you're a spectacular talent, but by and large, I think not.
If I don't miss my guess, that's how the WPL and Team Suck got their momentum......to narrow the field and sharpen up what it is that they do, resulting in a more consdered and defined spectrum to take best advantage of the photographers' skills.
Not every challenge is entered, and the effort put forth when a challenge is entered is a little more centered because of a specific goal.
The WPL goes for the high quality volume, and Team Suck spends more time on individual appreciation of more of the less than spectacular, but still very fine, photographs.
I don't think there is much if any crossover and both outside leagues seem to flourish in their own right.
I also see a lot more appreciation on an individual and personal level with the centered side projects like the Work, Self-Portrait, and Where-You-Live events.
I know from my own experiences that I have to be okay with what I want and where I want to go 'cause this whole thing is way bigger than one photographer can navigate alone.......it's nice that there are folks that keep their eyes and hearts open for newbies who are seeking help.
In my mind, how you view, get a message, and vote is a process that ever changes......there are some challenges that I have to be passive and let the pictures teach me and some that I feel that I know what I want out of the genre.......and yes, that means that to a certain extent I project my interpretation of how a challenge should be met, but that can easily go too far as well.
DNMC is IMNSHO the most difficult comment for me to make because in some cases, the title and description *IS* necessary to convey the message.
That doesn't mean it should win a challenge, but DNMC isn't a reasonable thing for me because I don't understand the photographer's statement.
That's just *MY* opinion, and I don't for one second discount another's personal feeling that if the photo can't carry the message, DNMC.
All of this too, in a perfect world......8>)
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 04:01:05 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I also see a lot more appreciation on an individual and personal level with the centered side projects like the Work, Self-Portrait, and Where-You-Live events.
|
I couldn't agree more with this one. I get the impression that when entering a challenge, the objective is to create the best ever stand-alone image possible. But that's not how we always work and live. As humans, we are constantly surounded by a world, a context with which to place what we experience. These side projects create a context which help define what the images represent. So when viewing an image that might score under 5 in a challenge, it is appreciated so much more because the viewer understands what it is supposed to represent - or is presented with photo notes to help explain. The notes and additional context are not available when voting in a challenge. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 04:33:47 PM · #10 |
yup yup yup. well don, there seems to be little dissention here. adn i'm not about to add to it. there is a dialogue between artista nd viewer. in my shows (in all media - painting, drawing, and photography)i usually put little infomation about the individual images, just an overall artist's statement. i try to keep titles simple, yet ambiguous. i love words with more than one meaning... i want to see what people see in my work, not only show what i saw.
a case in point is this image, titled 'No More'
it scored quite well for me, which was nice. the title was purposely ambiguous, and i got just the reactions i was hoping for. while some commenters read the title as the child not wanting to walk any further, in a tired, can we go home now daddy? kind of way, others read a mcuh darker emotion in the work.
so, in a way, not only is this piece refelcting what i saw (note -reflecting - it is not exactly what i saw, as photographs almost always lie), it is also reflecting who the viewer is.
i want , and expct my viewer to be active. i can and do make 'pretty pictures', and can revel in the colour, but the ones that make people think i fidn much more exciting.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 05:31:54 PM · #11 |
| IMO, overstating the obvious to the oblivious. You have (not so succinctly) defined what photography is all about! Nontheless a fine essay. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 06:27:30 PM · #12 |
A couple of you brought up the idea of "lowest common denominator" and appealing to the most people possible. These are just variations on the Passive Viewer Myth, since in order to achieve this goal you try to eliminate the work that the viewer has to do to appreciate the image. No work = passive. Most people are not "lowest common denominator" just like no family has the average number of children (around 2 and a half?). What I would like to eliminate is voting an image high because you think the lowest common denominator would like it, instead of listening to your own feelings about it.
And why should this take longer? It doesn't take me any longer to vote than it does anyone else. If anything it's easier to vote based on your natural reaction than it is to vote based on what you think the Passive Viewer will think. If you already are voting based on your natural reaction, then move along. But think carefully: is it really your natural reaction to give a 7 to a blueberry splashing in milk? Might it be that your first reaction is "so what?" and your SECOND reaction is "oh but it's technically good." Once you start talking about "technically good" you are assuming the passive viewer again, as I explained above.
If I only get through to a handful of people and change how they vote, if I only bring down the blue ribbons by one tenth of a vote, I'll have accomplished something, at least.
Originally posted by "ElGordo":
overstating the obvious to the oblivious |
I don't know if I've ever been summed up so well before.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 06:33:28 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
A couple of you brought up the idea of "lowest common denominator" and appealing to the most people possible. These are just variations on the Passive Viewer Myth, since in order to achieve this goal you try to eliminate the work that the viewer has to do to appreciate the image. No work = passive. Most people are not "lowest common denominator" just like no family has the average number of children (around 2 and a half?). What I would like to eliminate is voting an image high because you think the lowest common denominator would like it, instead of listening to your own feelings about it.
|
Yup, no person is average and no viewer is 'lowest common denominator'. If you thought that was what I meant then I didn't make my point clearly.
I don't believe your thesis that people vote on how they think other people would react to the image. I believe that most people vote on if they like or don't like the image. If you want to score highly across that group, on average, you have to pitch your image to get across your point to as many as possible - which is why aiming for the lowest common denominator works.
It isn't because more people think others would like the image, its because more people on average like the image.
I understand what you are saying a bit better now and I think the myth is that people vote for how some 'passive voter' would see the image, not that the passive voter is a myth. I think you've created a strawman and then proceeded to try and argue against it.
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 18:34:41.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 06:40:52 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
What I would like to eliminate is voting an image high because you think the lowest common denominator would like it, instead of listening to your own feelings about it. |
Ok you lost me. At first you said that viewers are not passive rather active yet here you're saying they are passive, too lazy to think for themselves and just go with the flow. Which is it?
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 18:41:53. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 08:33:35 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
What I would like to eliminate is voting an image high because you think the lowest common denominator would like it, instead of listening to your own feelings about it. |
I think people tend to submit photos that they "think" DPC'ers will like (over images that they personally would have preferred) simply because I've seen threads to that effect on many occasions.
But, I'm curious... why do you think people take enough time to think about an image and vote based on what they think OTHER DPC'ers will think as opposed to their own natural reaction?
If voting records were open to the public, I would expect what you say to be true. We would all look over our shoulder and make sure that our votes align with "expectations". But since voting is private and anonymous, I don't think your supposition is accurate ... I think voters are far more likely to simply vote their "natural reaction" than to take the time to think what other DPC'ers would want them to think.
Originally posted by posthumous:
If anything it's easier to vote based on your natural reaction than it is to vote based on what you think the Passive Viewer will think. |
And that's why I think the above supposition is wrong. Too much work. Too much time.
Originally posted by posthumous:
is it really your natural reaction to give a 7 to a blueberry splashing in milk? |
It might be. I might be totally blown away by the frozen moment of time - something that, in real life, I could never experience for myself. Such an image is powerful in the way it stimulates the imagination and makes you wonder what else is out there, hidden beyond view, that you'll never be able to experience for yourself.
Originally posted by posthumous:
If I only get through to a handful of people and change how they vote, if I only bring down the blue ribbons by one tenth of a vote, I'll have accomplished something, at least. |
So, instead of allowing people to "react naturally", you want to convince them that your thoughts and reactions are the "norm"?
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 20:46:29.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 08:51:15 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by posthumous:
If I only get through to a handful of people and change how they vote, if I only bring down the blue ribbons by one tenth of a vote, I'll have accomplished something, at least. |
So, instead of allowing people to "react naturally", you want to convince them that your thoughts and reactions are the "norm"? |
I dont believe thats what Don is trying to imply at all, I believe he is asking people to ask themselves if they are "reacting naturally" or in a way that seems to be the "right" way to vote at dpc. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 09:24:09 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by posthumous:
If I only get through to a handful of people and change how they vote, if I only bring down the blue ribbons by one tenth of a vote, I'll have accomplished something, at least. |
So, instead of allowing people to "react naturally", you want to convince them that your thoughts and reactions are the "norm"? |
I dont believe thats what Don is trying to imply at all, I believe he is asking people to ask themselves if they are "reacting naturally" or in a way that seems to be the "right" way to vote at dpc. |
He has a funny way of asking that as I too got the same impression as dwterry's. If that is Don's ultimate goal than perhaps more threads like e301's "Trick Cyclist" photo would serve that purpose better than say knocking certain types of photos that clearly he doesn't like (i.e. splash shots).
ETA: Although I probably don't have room to talk myself as I've been guilty in the past of knocking the prototypical landscape photos that get submit often and collect ribbons by the barrel.
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 21:31:03. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 09:30:35 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by posthumous:
If I only get through to a handful of people and change how they vote, if I only bring down the blue ribbons by one tenth of a vote, I'll have accomplished something, at least. |
So, instead of allowing people to "react naturally", you want to convince them that your thoughts and reactions are the "norm"? |
I dont believe thats what Don is trying to imply at all, I believe he is asking people to ask themselves if they are "reacting naturally" or in a way that seems to be the "right" way to vote at dpc. |
He has a funny way of asking that as I too got the same impression as dwterry's. If that is Don's ultimate goal than perhaps more threads like e301's "Trick Cyclist" photo would serve that purpose? |
the blessed pyromaniac is correct.
You think I'm funny, yanko? Do I amuse you? Am I a clown?
Seriously, I never once in this thread laid out a norm for other voters to conform to. It's amazing the assumptions that people will make.
I liked dwterry's explanation of his reaction to the splash. That's the sort of reaction I'm looking for, and I simply disagree that everyone is voting that way. Instead, they see a certain picture and think oh, the technicals are good and therefore I should give it a high vote. I've been known to succumb to that sort of thinking myself. If you're that much better than I am, then good for you. This thread isn't for you.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 09:50:56 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Instead, they see a certain picture and think oh, the technicals are good and therefore I should give it a high vote. I've been known to succumb to that sort of thinking myself. If you're that much better than I am, then good for you. This thread isn't for you. |
I think they also see it and think 'oh, I have no idea how to do that, I wish I knew/ I aspire to be that technically good' and give it a high mark. In that respect I think people who vote technically accomplished shots high are voting entirely selfishly. Probably more so here than if you say got a random sampling of the non-photographic public. People not aspiring to take technically good pictures, or wanting to sell stock.
People vote high on shots they don't think they could achieve, or wished they could achieve. Not because they think they should, but because they want to.
I think this idea that people vote for how they think they should vote is more complex than it should be. People vote for what they like. It doesn't have to be more complex than that. The vast majority of voters here are beginning photographers. We are all trying to learn.
Now, you could talk about why as a society we don't particularly value or aspire to the sort of images that are considered great from photographic history, but that's a discussion of the images we are bombarded with on a daily basis, or what is the nature of the evolution of art - not about some mythical supervisor voter that people are trying to conform to the ideal of.
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 21:52:46. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 10:08:52 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
You think I'm funny, yanko? Do I amuse you? Am I a clown? |
A dead one yes. :P
Seriously, I agree that certain types of photos don't get their fair shake but I don't believe it's for the reasons you've stated. As Gordon mentioned earlier is it not true that art, "true art" is incapable of the type of widespread appeal that the best commercial images obtain on an almost regular basis? |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 10:09:35 PM · #21 |
IMHO, I offer this essay:
A few years ago, as an art teacher, I taught a very rewarding, high school unit in aesthetics. It was very successful, reason being, the students (substitute DCP members for this venue) created the lessons...The unit was student (DPC) driven.
To start, what is aesthetics? - The visceral response to an image, the âI just like itâ response? How do you explain aesthetics or inform students (DPC voters)? In my teaching unit, I tried to create it, taking a simple glass of water and add a drop of food coloring and watch the magic unfold as the color swirled. (idea from adding cream to my coffee). Students responded with Ahhhh â thatâs so cool. BUT why is that so cool? What informs that moment to make you to respond like that? (let the new DCP viewer/voter grow and learn)
The aesthetic experience begs reasoning. Upon what do we evaluate such an experience? What kind of dichotomy, in challenge/voting does DPC want to encourage?
The visual discourse of voting, from passive to active, can be defined as the visual completion (a vote?) of an aesthetic experience at DPC, and this distinction marks the hierarchy of a vote. There is also discourse, such as those scientific in nature that would break down the wonder of a sunset to the science of light refractionâ (not my words, I just remember this in part from grad school)â¦resulting in the recognition of the talents to be able to post process an image to supersede the naiveté of a new comers skill?
Nobel-winning physicist Richard Feynman described such an event:
âI have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. ... Although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. But at the same time, I see much more in the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells inside, and other processes. There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.â
Summary
A concern for beauty shows up throughout the arts. Wise artists have always woven aesthetic experiences (ambiguous titles add to this) into their art because that enriches the learning process, should the voter take that road, making learning more inherently interesting and motivating for the active viewer. Within DPC, it seems voting might be disconnected from learning (given the lack of constructive comments). Creating an aesthetic environment and using DPC to strengthen learning in photography ought to interest every member; however there remains the lowest common denominator.
Consider that lowest common denominator:
Imagine a new member entering a challenge voting for the first time, viewing entries, and selecting⦠begin voting. What does he/she see? What does he/she recognize from the rules of a basic editing challenge to advanced or expert editing? Also consider in an aesthetic environment for voting, would the atmosphere be soft, pleasant colors, neutral warm feelings; but are the strident sounds childrenâs feet and voices, room mates, loud music, TV blaringâ¦etc, add to the experience? How do we know what atmosphere a voter approaches a photograph in the voting experience?
edit: spelling errors
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 22:59:33.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2007 12:40:36 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
What I would like to eliminate is voting an image high because you think the lowest common denominator would like it, instead of listening to your own feelings about it. |
Originally posted by dwterry:
I think people tend to submit photos that they "think" DPC'ers will like (over images that they personally would have preferred) simply because I've seen threads to that effect on many occasions.
But, I'm curious... why do you think people take enough time to think about an image and vote based on what they think OTHER DPC'ers will think as opposed to their own natural reaction?
If voting records were open to the public, I would expect what you say to be true. We would all look over our shoulder and make sure that our votes align with "expectations". But since voting is private and anonymous, I don't think your supposition is accurate ... I think voters are far more likely to simply vote their "natural reaction" than to take the time to think what other DPC'ers would want them to think. |
I can actually relate to that simply because part of what I've learned here is how to cater to the votes to a certain extent and I will be swayed with an obvious attempt to satisfy with a DPC styled entry.
I have on more than one occasion entered shots that I thought would do it for the DPC masses rather than myself.
It isn't like anyone is holding a gun to your head in the attempt to get you to do.......whatever.
You know what the deal is here by now, you're a big boy......if you really get disgusted, why not try something else?
I got my hardest lesson when I submitted an entry that was a bad combination between a too-far-out-there stretch of the imagination and an effort at tongue-in-cheek.
The funny thing is that I got my absolutely best and most meaningful comment ever on that shot from someone I admire and respect.
And it wasn't a bad shot at all, it was just was too clever for my own good and I got roundly, and to a certain extent justifiably, spanked.
And I learned.
To me that's the amazing thing about this place.....really different people, different thoughts, ideals, and perspectives, and if you go to any profile of anyone who has been here for any length of time, you'll see steady improvement across the board in spite of what seem to be glaringly different approaches.
Originally posted by posthumous:
is it really your natural reaction to give a 7 to a blueberry splashing in milk? |
Originally posted by dwterry:
It might be. I might be totally blown away by the frozen moment of time - something that, in real life, I could never experience for myself. Such an image is powerful in the way it stimulates the imagination and makes you wonder what else is out there, hidden beyond view, that you'll never be able to experience for yourself. |
Hey, I'll still give an Icelandic Aurora that I'll never see a 10 if it pleases my eye and it's "technically correct".
I have a much better handle on what it takes both as a photographer and as someone who is gaining familiarity with PhotoShop what it takes to get a truly spectacular shot just from my exposure here at DPC.
I am just as impressed with an exquisitely done job of tone-mapping as I am with the perfect freeze-frame of the 50 foot roostertail of water as an open-sea hydroplane blasts by at 150+ mph.
I can't do either one, and I have no problem with a gushing comment and a ludicrously high vote to express my admiration.
Originally posted by posthumous:
If I only get through to a handful of people and change how they vote, if I only bring down the blue ribbons by one tenth of a vote, I'll have accomplished something, at least. |
Why not just offer up your observation for what it is than try and change something that isn't likely to?
Does it really matter to you what the masses necessarily think of your work versus the next guy if you don't feel that they think anyway?
Does it matter to you what I think? Or Yanko? Or the guy who votes a 7 on the blueberry?
I know every now and then I get caught up in what the voters think as if it makes a hill of beans of a difference.....it does as part of what DPC stands for in competition, but not to what I'll exhibit or take to a sale.
My last two challenge entires got an overwhelming outpouring of apathy and it bugged me right up until I realized that I had already matted and framed the one, and the other I had already blown up and was looking for the right mat and place to hang it.
I almost wish I had not entered either of them as my respect for some of the voters went way down until I realized that I had not given them what they wanted. But I learned a valuable lesson, too.
EDIT: Stupid typos and grammar.....8>(
Message edited by author 2007-02-17 00:51:23.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2007 12:45:42 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
I think people tend to submit photos that they "think" DPC'ers will like (over images that they personally would have preferred) simply because I've seen threads to that effect on many occasions. |
I don't disagree - especially when it comes to the competitive among us. Then there are those oddballs (I'm one of 'em) who submit things they are fairly sure won't do as well as other possibilities, simply because they like them better and don't mind the score. See my Free Studies. I had at least two shots for January's Free Study that I'm quite certain would have fared better scorewise. But the one I entered was the one I really liked, and in my opinion was a success based on comments received. If it strikes a note with just one other person, I consider it a success by my standards.
I agree with  dsterner's comments about new voters - the "wow" factor is pretty durn high here. But I also think that the longer a person hangs out here, the more weight they give to the "not your standard DPC shot" shots. Maybe not more "weight" per se, but more time.
And apologies to those who want more, but sometimes all I can say is "I like it and I can't tell you why".
|
|
|
|
02/17/2007 11:13:01 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Why not just offer up your observation for what it is than try and change something that isn't likely to? |
Huh? For what what is?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Does it really matter to you what the masses necessarily think of your work versus the next guy if you don't feel that they think anyway? |
I don't feel that they think? Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Does it matter to you what I think? Or Yanko? Or the guy who votes a 7 on the blueberry? |
Yes, it does matter. I care about what people think. I find thinking to be one of the most fascinating topics there is.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/10/2025 01:03:31 PM  |
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: 08/10/2025 01:03:31 PM EDT.
|
