DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Who Says You Need A Good Eye For Photography?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 71 of 71, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/28/2003 04:27:11 AM · #51
we attended a concert done by elephants that supposedly make music, and what we got was bing and bangs of metal clashing, and horns blowing - things I'd rather not hear, but we bought tickets anyway and attended a full 1 hour concert of that... just because they are done by elephants.

I'm smoking weed again. pls excuse me :)
 06/28/2003 09:03:57 AM · #52
so it sounds like (and this isn't the first time I've heard this proposition) people believe that something unusual about the process or 'backstory' of a given work can completely counterbalance the result itself.

in other words, the HOW AND WHY of what was created become MORE IMPORTANT than the WHAT was created.

this is, of course, perfectly valid, but does require there to be an element of explanation alongside the presentation of the actual final work. from a practical perspective, not a lot of people can guarantee this in their distribution medium.
 06/28/2003 09:52:23 AM · #53
Oh, absolutely, magnetic. The how and why is more important than the what. I therefore feel that museums should shuck their Velazquezes and Rembrandts and all. Just because those people happen to be able to draw and paint is no excuse that they should be in museums. In fact, i would argue that it's an excellent reason NOT to have them around. Paintings by people who could paint well? Oh come on, that's just so mundane. Such simplistic thinking.

Hope all of you remember that when you'll see my Blind submission for the letter B challenge. I closed my eyes, heard birds singing, went outside, and shot. It really doesn't look like anything at all but if you think about it carefully, it is AWESOME.
 06/28/2003 10:49:42 AM · #54
Originally posted by Journey:
Oh, absolutely, magnetic. The how and why is more important than the what. I therefore feel that museums should shuck their Velazquezes and Rembrandts and all. Just because those people happen to be able to draw and paint is no excuse that they should be in museums. In fact, i would argue that it's an excellent reason NOT to have them around. Paintings by people who could paint well? Oh come on, that's just so mundane. Such simplistic thinking.

Hope all of you remember that when you'll see my Blind submission for the letter B challenge. I closed my eyes, heard birds singing, went outside, and shot. It really doesn't look like anything at all but if you think about it carefully, it is AWESOME.


Yeah, but my painting was by an ELEPHANT.

Pedro

ps No, still no point.
 06/28/2003 11:03:28 AM · #55
Originally posted by pedromarlinez:
Yeah, but my painting was by an ELEPHANT.


mine too, LOL
 06/28/2003 11:21:03 AM · #56
Hey, Pedro, notice that you're no longer double posting. How did you get rid of that curse?
 06/28/2003 11:21:29 AM · #57
Hey, Pedro, notice that you're no longer double posting. How did you get rid of that curse?
 06/28/2003 11:34:38 AM · #58
say i fashioned a device that allowed me to strap my 10D to the back of my head, and would take a picture ever minute during the course of a day...i would be blind to what i was taking a picture of. would people be giving me an art show and posting about me in some photography site? hell no. just like mag said, celebrating the guy because he is blind without even seeing one photo is riddiculous
 06/28/2003 11:36:14 AM · #59
It's saturday, he's not at work.

It's saturday, he's not at work.

(double posting while doing the ecologically cool conservation thing)
 06/28/2003 12:32:01 PM · #60
Originally posted by mavrik:
It's saturday, he's not at work.

It's saturday, he's not at work.

(double posting while doing the ecologically cool conservation thing)


somebody get that man an elephant cookie.

New laptop should be here within the next couple of weeks, so then I won't double double post post even from there.

Although i do find it makes my points twice as salient. like the one about the elephant.

Pedro
 06/28/2003 01:38:58 PM · #61
Originally posted by Jak:
how mean-spirited and unpleasant many of you are. I'm sick of it and can't be bothered to waste any more of my time in these forums. I'm way too busy selling my photographs.

Good luck with your cynicism and small-mindedness -- it will serve you well in the New World Order.


You hit it right on the head there Jak.

Tim
 06/28/2003 11:17:49 PM · #62
jimmythefish: You gave me a good belly laugh on your response to the blind photographer. That one come out? no.......
Hilarious.
 06/29/2003 12:10:35 AM · #63
Deleted by author. Not wishing to stir this pot any more.

Message edited by author 2003-06-29 00:53:25.
 06/29/2003 12:17:03 AM · #64
Why is it that when someone else's point is disagreed with, it is okay, but when you, Jak, are disagreed with, they are stupid?
Please refrain from personal attacks. ...
Thank you.
 06/29/2003 12:56:53 AM · #65
Originally posted by KarenB:
Why is it that when someone else's point is disagreed with, it is okay, but when you, Jak, are disagreed with, they are stupid?
Please refrain from personal attacks. ...
Thank you.


Karen, thank you! I suppose there is so much sensitivity in your photography because there is sensitivity in your heart.

Not a single person in this thread attacked this blind man for making pictures. Everybody in this thread was encouraging of the fact that he was doing this. But those people, myself included, who were stating that it should not be qualified as art just because he was blind have been called insensitive. My feeling is that this man, blind or whatever other handicap he might have, would be treated CONDESCENDINGLY if we call his photography productions art for no other reason than that he is blind.

Message edited by magnetic9999 - irrelevant political rhetoric.
 06/29/2003 09:32:55 AM · #66
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
sorry if i seemed mean. not my intention. yes, i can see how one would find it interesting. it is however, also interesting to discuss the validity of this artform and the relative merits of a) this approach, b) his results, and c), in a general sense of 'product' vs. 'process'. I.e. does an unusual set of process based circumstances add 'validity' to the product. However, none of that discussion on my part was intended to slight anyone. I do applaud this guy for having the guts to pursue his direction in the face of such strong skepticism.

I didn't had you in mind when saying that people were mean to Mr. Audiejaitis. I should have strucutered my post more clearly. Sorry.

I agree that discussing his way of photography can be interesting. Especially in a DPC forum ;) I do not exactly understand what you mean by "validity" but to me his photography is as valid as any other persons way of expression.
Relative merit of appoach, result and 'product' vs. 'process'? Hm... I rarely analyse photos _that_ deeply ;-)
 06/29/2003 09:36:07 AM · #67
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Stephan, you seem to be missing the point that you can take the work he does at face value (it might be mildly interesting in context, but I doubt it) and see the humour in it as well.

I agree you can do this. But why should I? I mean that's probably not the way the author inteded it. But of course you're free to look at other peoples photography how you like.

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Seriously, though, it isn't really art in a true sense as he's not representing how he experiences the world, is he? He's just guessing. He's photographing things which MIGHT seem interesting to him. In reality, it's just going to be some random, poorly framed shots of street scenes.

"art in a true sense" Wow! I avoid speaking about "art" because it's such an overloaded word where everybody understands something different.
But anyway. In my opinion you understood several things differently than me (I do not say "wrong" because... well.. I also don't know enough about this person to be a judge here).
- Actually he _is_ representing how he "sees" the world. Through his sense of hearing. Exactly this is what I think is so interesting!
- No, he's not just guessing. He uses his sense of hearing to select his subjects.
- No, the things not only _might_ be interesting to him, they _are_. Otherwise he wouldn't have photographed them.

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
In all seriousness, I'd much rather see the work of someone who sees something interesting and captures it, rather than hearing something interesting, guessing it might look interesting, and attempting to photograph it. It's just not a process which can yield great results.

Visually probably not, but as I said it's not the only factor in photography I'm interested in.

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Would you record something that looks good if you were deaf, and then play it back for other people?

If they are interested, yes.

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I'm sorry, but it's just weak. There's nothing more to say. He's not involved fully in his own art form as he has no way of making a statement which he can validate. His friends pick out the 'better ones' and therefore it's not really his own work.

I do not think his goal is to make the greatest looking photos. As explained above he makes his statement differently.

06/29/2003 09:36:48 AM · #68
Originally posted by achiral:
i wanna see a blind person try a flower macro...that should end this discussion

Just look into the mirror... Your eyes can't handle a 1/1000s exposure to "freeze" the bumblebee. You cannot see infrared light. You cannot see the beauty of a long exposure shot of a carousel at night. You cannot look directly into the sun, maybe for a short time, but you squint so much that you miss the aureole.

You're so blind! But I think it's ok that you use your camera to compensate your handicap :-)

06/29/2003 09:37:33 AM · #69
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
so it sounds like (and this isn't the first time I've heard this proposition) people believe that something unusual about the process or 'backstory' of a given work can completely counterbalance the result itself.

in other words, the HOW AND WHY of what was created become MORE IMPORTANT than the WHAT was created.

Magnetic, I feel like you're the only one to be interested in a serious discussion about this matter.
Your comment made me think. As I said before, to me the backstory of a photo certainly belongs to the whole impression. But how far goes this? Would I buy a photo that I visually absolutely hate and hang it on my wall, because I like the backstory so much? No, I don't think so. I would rather buy a book about the backstory ;-) So in Remigijus Audiejaitis' case, is it only the backstory and not the actual photos which interest me? No, because I didn't see any photos yet and the backstory really intrigued me so much that I certainly would go to his exhibition. And if it happens to be be both, interesting backstory and visually appealing, then this would be great photography.

And I'm pretty confident that an automatic camera can produce great results. Achiral proved that.

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
this is, of course, perfectly valid, but does require there to be an element of explanation alongside the presentation of the actual final work. from a practical perspective, not a lot of people can guarantee this in their distribution medium.

Well, unfortunately not on DPC, because no descriptive comments are shown during the challenge. So, Journey, your entry to the Letter B challenge sadly won't be understood.
 06/29/2003 09:38:55 AM · #70
Originally posted by Journey:
Not a single person in this thread attacked this blind man for making pictures.

You made fun of him by saying that his photography would be the same as if you would make collages of used toilet paper. I know you just wanted to explain your point in a funny way but I still think that's insulting.

Originally posted by Journey:
Everybody in this thread was encouraging of the fact that he was doing this. But those people, myself included, who were stating that it should not be qualified as art just because he was blind have been called insensitive.

No, I don't think you were insensitive only because you said it shouldn't be qualified as art. That's your opinion and how can somebody have an insensitive opinion? It's the _way_ you expressed your opinion that I think was insensitive.

Originally posted by Journey:
My feeling is that this man, blind or whatever other handicap he might have, would be treated CONDESCENDINGLY if we call his photography productions art for no other reason than that he is blind.

I don't know how often I have to repeat it in this thread: No, I'm not interested in his photography just because he's blind! Please read my other posts.

From where did you get this impression?
 06/29/2003 11:08:46 AM · #71
so i searched for more info about this fellow. couldnt find any.

just one other news story by AP that was replicated in a lot of different publications.

//www.adn.com/24hour/weird/story/923876p-6434619c.html

i'm still trying to find examples of the work but i definitely get the impression that he is 'process oriented' vs product oriented. I.e. when you take interest in this fellow's work you are interested in the entire context - not just a finished product.

Nothing wrong with that at all. in fact, it might be interesting for people who think that a 'picture is just a picture' to realize that alot of Art History is about the context almost more than the finished result; i.e. why a certain result was groundbreaking for its time, or how the life or philosophy of the artist contributed to the importance of the work.

Message edited by author 2003-06-29 12:37:00.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 08:45:59 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/27/2025 08:45:59 AM EDT.