|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/08/2010 04:15:33 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by pekesty:
Let me expand my vague little statement since someone thought it was worthy enough to call out in another DPC-headbutting-go-nowhere thread!
So, by closed minded, I'm talking about DPCer's willingness to take a moment to think about other styles of photography. The mindset around here is "I don't like" or "I don't understand" so I'll just vote low and move on quickly as possible and get to the "shiny-sparlkly-trinket" photos!
You don't have to like every style of photography, but a moment or two taken to see what the photographer was trying to show(or even what you, the viewer might see) might help you expand your own photography.
But, since everybody seems bent on just repeating what has been done before... |
Well, I find these threads and the comments that start them to be sort of self-selected head-butting: whining about the taste of the majority is like spitting in the wind: it doesn't change the wind, and you just get soaked by your own spittle. Photographers photograph for an endless variety of reasons, are inspired to press the shutter release by an endless variety of subject matter, and choose to process and present their work in an endless variety of ways. DPC photographers come from a very wide demographic of location, gender, culture, experience, taste, intentions, etc. etc. etc, and have nearly as many different reasons for being here as there are members. Some would like a ribbon, some want a ribbon, some NEED a ribbon, some enjoy seeing others work, some enjoy having their work seen, some come to learn, some teach and share (and all combinations of the above).
So, when putting one's work before a wide demographic with such wide and varying intentions, experience, and taste, one should expect that certain types of images will be more accessible to a larger percentage of that group than than others. To demean the group for voting that way is to ignore the basic value and merit of the group in the first place. The demographic here is wide and deep: this adds value. One can see portraiture, water drops, bugs, abstract, street, astro, nature, studio, b/w, color, supersaturated color, HDR, minimally processed, maximally processed, and lots of other types of work here. This is a site where one can be exposed to such a wide variety of things (as opposed to sites with only bird photography, or trains, etc).
Anyone who has been here even for a short while can see the trend in ribbon winning types of images, and can choose to pursue a ribbon in that way if so desired. I appreciate those who, despite the fact that a ribbon is not remotely likely, will share with us all an image that they love, that speaks to them, and may speak to some of us, too.
The diversity of content, style, intentions, and experience here is a truly valuable thing, and one can take as much or as little from it as desired.
The whining, name-calling, describing the membership in total or in part as "closed-minded" or not "fair-minded" or "right-minded" is not value-added. The assumption that because some members do not, in every single challenge, take a moment to consider other styles of photography means they have never considered it, or that they must reconsider to fit one person's definition of open-minded, is ludicrous. Telling others how to vote, telling others how much time they should spend voting, telling them that the winners are just "shiny-sparkly-trinket" photos, is arrogant and offensive. The underlying foundation of such statements is that the speaker knows better than everyone else, that the speaker's taste, experience, methods are superior to everyone else's.
Vote how you want, let others do the same, see what happens. It actually is amusing, I think, that artists would attach so much value to their art being measured and assigned a numerical value! Clearly, some don't mind, some don't care what "score" they get, and some care a LOT about it. The rating of one piece of art vs another on a scale from 1-10 is a very personal choice, and saying that because a larger number of people rated one higher than the other proves it to be superior art is obviously silly on the face of it. The challenges here are not rating superiority of art, but a complex combination of challenge rule compliance, effectiveness, communication, with as many criteria as there are voters. It is a game. You can play the game and learn from it, have fun with it, or be offended and horrified by it, I guess. But if the latter, why play at all?
Independent of the game, and wonderfully, rightfully so, is the fact that the images that cause my neurons to fire and light up are going to be different than the images that cause that in other viewers. Being happy with the overlap AND the gaps is the thing. Trying to force the overlap to be larger, the gaps to be smaller, is futile at best, offensive at worst. It is like trying to cover the world with leather to protect your feet. It is much easier to wear shoes. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:19:41 PM · #77 |
Saying anything around here is a bit like pissing into the wind...other than being a little blunt, I'm not sure why incouraging people try to find new ways to do their photography ruined anything!
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Originally posted by pekesty:
Let me expand my vague little statement since someone thought it was worthy enough to call out in another DPC-headbutting-go-nowhere thread!
So, by closed minded, I'm talking about DPCer's willingness to take a moment to think about other styles of photography. The mindset around here is "I don't like" or "I don't understand" so I'll just vote low and move on quickly as possible and get to the "shiny-sparlkly-trinket" photos!
You don't have to like every style of photography, but a moment or two taken to see what the photographer was trying to show(or even what you, the viewer might see) might help you expand your own photography.
But, since everybody seems bent on just repeating what has been done before... |
I don't think you help your case by painting people here with a such a broad brush. I find your comments a bit insulting actually. |
You did make a very good, very thoughtful statement:
"You don't have to like every style of photography, but a moment or two taken to see what the photographer was trying to show(or even what you, the viewer might see) might help you expand your own photography. "
But you ruined it by adding the next line. Yes, people repeat things that have done before. There is nothing new under the sun. When's the last time you read a completely unique novel? Genres, plots, subtexts, they've all been done before in various degrees. Perhaps some things aren't done as often, simply because they're not particularly worth doing. You can't assume, just because a photograph scored low, that people didn't give it the consideration it was due. It's completely possible that they stopped, looked, gave it some time, and still thought it stunk. |
|
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:21:05 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
You can't assume, just because a photograph scored low, that people didn't give it the consideration it was due. |
If the subject matter isn't a landscape, a razor-sharp portrait, or a water drop, I think that's a pretty safe assumption at DPC. :-) And that's all fine and well.
That's of course hyperbole, and I'm very happy that many top-scoring images have more depth of late (such as the Umbrella challenge blue ribbon, or 52nd place out of 332 in the latest Free Study), but I think the voters here will always value stunning colourful vistas more than introspective dream imagery. I don't believe either is "more right" or "more photographic" than the other, but I do think that the side any particular viewer falls on with respect to each says much about the individual.
For example, while Jane might say "How pretty, what a great picture" when she sees a beautiful panoramic seascape with brilliant colours and perfect depth of field, the fact that she is reduced to quiet contemplation or even a touch of sadness at yanko's bug mess, or stares with her mouth open and her eyes wide at zeuszen's piece of construction plastic, is significant. In my view, either a photo has a voice, or it's nothing more than a direct representation of the world in front of the photographer's eyes despite tweaking. To paraphrase someone or other, the best photos are representations, but also metaphors. The language of the metaphor is up to the viewer. Either you "hear" it or you don't. (Personally, I did a series of arrow pictures a couple of years ago, and zeuszen's dreamy photo in question meant a lot to me at first view, and made me question my whole approach to "the arrow". Sounds dumb, but that's what happened to me.)
Sure, you can consider this approach to photography so much mumbo-jumbo if you like, but every reaction speaks volumes about the individual. Nothing (short of insults) is really "wrong".
Message edited by author 2010-01-08 16:24:30. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:21:13 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by pekesty:
You don't have to like every style of photography, but a moment or two taken to see what the photographer was trying to show(or even what you, the viewer might see) might help you expand your own photography. |
(Bold added for clarity)
If not a message then what was he trying to show (in your opinion)? |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:25:56 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Originally posted by pekesty:
You don't have to like every style of photography, but a moment or two taken to see what the photographer was trying to show(or even what you, the viewer might see) might help you expand your own photography. |
(Bold added for clarity)
If not a message then what was he trying to show (in your opinion)? |
Whatever you see!
R. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:31:30 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Originally posted by pekesty:
You don't have to like every style of photography, but a moment or two taken to see what the photographer was trying to show(or even what you, the viewer might see) might help you expand your own photography. |
(Bold added for clarity)
If not a message then what was he trying to show (in your opinion)? |
Whatever you see!
R. |
Indeed. I'm of the opinion that sometimes it is not important at all what the photographer thinks or what message they are trying to get across, the end piece of art and what it conveys to the viewer is all that matters. The artist should sling their hook after they've finished creating! It's not a documentary.
E.T.A - Note that i said 'sometimes' there.
Message edited by author 2010-01-08 16:32:52. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:31:31 PM · #82 |
...you know what sucks...expressing an opinion in one thread because you were disappointed that an image you really enjoyed got a bum score...then being called out in a new one. I know Barry was probably just trying to start a conversation...but...
It's like pack mentality...I never in a million years thought Mark would be today's evil villain at DPC.
Let's think about the opposite of closed minded...open minded.
It's not like asking someone to give up their first born.
It's all part of learning and growing as a photographer. It's about craving something more than what is, what's obvious...it's about starting a conversation. It's that something that makes you think, question, laugh, cry...and even desire.
It's about imagination, progression...and ultimately what we as growing viewers and photographers yearn for...more depth.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:34:38 PM · #83 |
| It's about disagreeing and being labeled closed minded... |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:42:30 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
It's about disagreeing and being labeled closed minded... |
...only if you want it to be. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:45:24 PM · #85 |
 Zeuszen, he/she/it is delighting in this thread. This member who is genderless provokes, teases and tickles other members and revels in the resulting reactions! Sometimes exposing the pseudo-art critics and other times just kicking asses of other members to guage a bit of feedback.
Note that, he/she/it, as I am sure this member would like to be described, has not made any comments in answer to the 4 pages of discussion. I think this is a deliberate attempt to provoke just such discourse. Perhaps it is to make people think deeper or perhaps just a photographic joke to see what kind of reaction a blurry B&W photo can achieve.
Either way, some will think is fanastic art, others will think it is a crappy B&W photo that got the result it deserved! |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:45:40 PM · #86 |
Bring out the torches and pitchforks!
|
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:51:30 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Zeuszen, he/she/it is delighting in this thread. This member who is genderless provokes, teases and tickles other members and revels in the resulting reactions! Sometimes exposing the pseudo-art critics and other times just kicking asses of other members to guage a bit of feedback.
Note that, he/she/it, as I am sure this member would like to be described, has not made any comments in answer to the 4 pages of discussion. I think this is a deliberate attempt to provoke just such discourse. Perhaps it is to make people think deeper or perhaps just a photographic joke to see what kind of reaction a blurry B&W photo can achieve.
Either way, some will think is fantastic art, others will think it is a crappy B&W photo that got the result it deserved! |
I just took a quick look at his portfolio and the image we are discussing is nothing like the majority of his work. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:52:09 PM · #88 |
I, for one, will never stop trying to push for people to see a little differently myself.
I, for one, am one of those that is fed up with the status quo. However, I'll always be fed up with it. If the status quo suddenly became constant ribbon winners of the type of photography that is zeuszen's entry here, then I would start yelling about that too.
I'm nothing if not consistent. lol.
The masses ARE closed-minded. It's just simple human nature. It happens in every walk of life. Anyone taking anyone calling "the voters" anything, personally, is just being ridiculous. Who the heck cares what joe blow from idaho thinks of "the voters"? If anything, if you're taking offense because someone thinks the masses on this site are a little too sheep-like, then it could be a chance for you to simply sit and consider your place. HAVE you become a little too complacent in your viewing and voting? HAVE you fallen into the trap of just seeing everything like everyone else? HAVE you become so jaded that nothing looks good anymore and your voting stats are reflecting it?
If not, then whatever.
If so, what's the harm in self-reflection?
Stop taking everything in this website, and everything anyone says, so damn seriously, you people that are doing so. As Chromeydome says, it's just a game. Learn to play it. Once you do that, you can go nuts learning to play it differently, and screw us opinionated dickheads that sometimes just want to see a little difference happen. Now and then. You know? |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:54:45 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I, for one, will never stop trying to push for people to see a little differently myself.
I, for one, am one of those that is fed up with the status quo. However, I'll always be fed up with it. |
What if being fed up becomes this status quo, then what? ;-) |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:55:30 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I, for one, will never stop trying to push for people to see a little differently myself.
I, for one, am one of those that is fed up with the status quo. However, I'll always be fed up with it. |
What if being fed up becomes this status quo, then what? ;-) |
I'll have to be fed down. Or put down. I bet a lot of people would vote the second one. Those silly masses. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:55:33 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Zeuszen, he/she/it is delighting in this thread. This member who is genderless provokes, teases and tickles other members and revels in the resulting reactions! Sometimes exposing the pseudo-art critics and other times just kicking asses of other members to guage a bit of feedback.
Note that, he/she/it, as I am sure this member would like to be described, has not made any comments in answer to the 4 pages of discussion. I think this is a deliberate attempt to provoke just such discourse. Perhaps it is to make people think deeper or perhaps just a photographic joke to see what kind of reaction a blurry B&W photo can achieve.
Either way, some will think is fantastic art, others will think it is a crappy B&W photo that got the result it deserved! |
I just took a quick look at his portfolio and the image we are discussing is nothing like the majority of his work. |
Portfolio?? Try talking to him/her/it!! Ask a question? The answer you want, is within you?? I know how this member works, or perhaps I don't? That's the feeling you get:))
Message edited by author 2010-01-08 16:58:33. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 04:56:35 PM · #92 |
It is one thing to say "here is an image from the Free Study that I really liked" and maybe add "here's why I liked it"
It is entirely another to say "The voters are closed-minded, eye-candy seeking, and wrong because they didn't like this image, too."
The basic assumption that there is a Right and Wrong way to see images, to enjoy or not enjoy them, to vote on them, that unless we all agree on the merits of a photograph someone MUST be wrong--if fundamentally flawed.
Maybe the reaction in this thread is directly due to the one person's comment, but my comments are not: it seems like this sort of comment gets made after challenges pretty often: someone telling others how to vote, how long they must spend looking at and considering an image for the vote to be considered "considered", and routinely labeling winning shots as eye-candy (which, in itself, begs the question whether the commenter really considered and thought about those images...).
In my ideal DPCtopia, this would have been a thread celebrating an image that someone took and someone else loved. Some would agree, appreciate it getting a spotlight as they would have otherwise missed it. Others might disagree, but respectfully so. And those disagreeing would not be labeled and demeaned by those who liked it, nor the other way round. Some discussion of what makes it work for some, what made it not work for others, and perhaps a bit of seeing the image in a new way, whether or not it changed one's feelings about it. And the winning images would not have been disparaged in order to make the presenter's image of choice seem better.
A paraphrased Ray Bradbury quote (because I can't remember it precisely):
"Isn't that what life is all about? The ability to go around and look through the other person's eyes and say 'Oh, so that's how you see it? That's very interesting! I must remember that...."
To me, this is at least what photography is all about....
Message edited by author 2010-01-08 17:00:21. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 05:00:15 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Zeuszen, he/she/it is delighting in this thread. This member who is genderless provokes, teases and tickles other members and revels in the resulting reactions! Sometimes exposing the pseudo-art critics and other times just kicking asses of other members to guage a bit of feedback.
Note that, he/she/it, as I am sure this member would like to be described, has not made any comments in answer to the 4 pages of discussion. I think this is a deliberate attempt to provoke just such discourse. Perhaps it is to make people think deeper or perhaps just a photographic joke to see what kind of reaction a blurry B&W photo can achieve.
Either way, some will think is fanastic art, others will think it is a crappy B&W photo that got the result it deserved! |
I kind of got the impression by the self-portrait he uses as his profile pic that he was male. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 05:02:19 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I just took a quick look at his portfolio and the image we are discussing is nothing like the majority of his work. |
You're right! I've just had a look as well and there is no sign of arrows or numbers in his other images! The man is a swiz!!! |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 05:07:53 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Zeuszen, he/she/it is delighting in this thread. This member who is genderless provokes, teases and tickles other members and revels in the resulting reactions! Sometimes exposing the pseudo-art critics and other times just kicking asses of other members to guage a bit of feedback.
Note that, he/she/it, as I am sure this member would like to be described, has not made any comments in answer to the 4 pages of discussion. I think this is a deliberate attempt to provoke just such discourse. Perhaps it is to make people think deeper or perhaps just a photographic joke to see what kind of reaction a blurry B&W photo can achieve.
Either way, some will think is fanastic art, others will think it is a crappy B&W photo that got the result it deserved! |
I kind of got the impression by the self-portrait he uses as his profile pic that he was male. |
Nah! That is a mindbending ploy he/she/it uses to generate confusion. As in Zen, you percieve what your mind's eye sees, you label things so you can identify them and be comfortable, but is what you see real or your imagination?? |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 05:08:02 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
It is one thing to say "here is an image from the Free Study that I really liked" and maybe add "here's why I liked it"
It is entirely another to say "The voters are closed-minded, eye-candy seeking, and wrong because they didn't like this image, too."
The basic assumption that there is a Right and Wrong way to see images, to enjoy or not enjoy them, to vote on them, that unless we all agree on the merits of a photograph someone MUST be wrong--if fundamentally flawed.
Maybe the reaction in this thread is directly due to the one person's comment, but my comments are not: it seems like this sort of comment gets made after challenges pretty often: someone telling others how to vote, how long they must spend looking at and considering an image for the vote to be considered "considered", and routinely labeling winning shots as eye-candy (which, in itself, begs the question whether the commenter really considered and thought about those images...).
In my ideal DPCtopia, this would have been a thread celebrating an image that someone took and someone else loved. Some would agree, appreciate it getting a spotlight as they would have otherwise missed it. Others might disagree, but respectfully so. And those disagreeing would not be labeled and demeaned by those who liked it, nor the other way round. Some discussion of what makes it work for some, what made it not work for others, and perhaps a bit of seeing the image in a new way, whether or not it changed one's feelings about it. And the winning images would not have been disparaged in order to make the presenter's image of choice seem better.
A paraphrased Ray Bradbury quote (because I can't remember it precisely):
"Isn't that what life is all about? The ability to go around and look through the other person's eyes and say 'Oh, so that's how you see it? That's very interesting! I must remember that...."
To me, this is at least what photography is all about.... |
Mm, Utopia. Would that it could ever be.
Unfortunately, like your original assertion that people like pekesty are 'pissing into the wind', you're pretty much just doing the same thing here too. Want utopia? Be pro-active about it and set the example.
Me? I've tried a number of times to do just that, but lost the will. It fell on deaf ears, and got lost beneath the wave of disinterest. The only thing people seem to respond to, really, is this 'pissing into the wind'.
Sad? Yes. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 05:11:03 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Zeuszen, he/she/it is delighting in this thread. This member who is genderless provokes, teases and tickles other members and revels in the resulting reactions! Sometimes exposing the pseudo-art critics and other times just kicking asses of other members to guage a bit of feedback.
Note that, he/she/it, as I am sure this member would like to be described, has not made any comments in answer to the 4 pages of discussion. I think this is a deliberate attempt to provoke just such discourse. Perhaps it is to make people think deeper or perhaps just a photographic joke to see what kind of reaction a blurry B&W photo can achieve.
Either way, some will think is fanastic art, others will think it is a crappy B&W photo that got the result it deserved! |
I kind of got the impression by the self-portrait he uses as his profile pic that he was male. |
Nah! That is a mindbending ploy he/she/it uses to generate confusion. As in Zen, you percieve what your mind's eye sees, you label things so you can identify them and be comfortable, but is what you see real or your imagination?? |
Ah, thought as much. :) |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 05:27:25 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
It is one thing to say "here is an image from the Free Study that I really liked" and maybe add "here's why I liked it"
It is entirely another to say "The voters are closed-minded, eye-candy seeking, and wrong because they didn't like this image, too."
The basic assumption that there is a Right and Wrong way to see images, to enjoy or not enjoy them, to vote on them, that unless we all agree on the merits of a photograph someone MUST be wrong--if fundamentally flawed.
Maybe the reaction in this thread is directly due to the one person's comment, but my comments are not: it seems like this sort of comment gets made after challenges pretty often: someone telling others how to vote, how long they must spend looking at and considering an image for the vote to be considered "considered", and routinely labeling winning shots as eye-candy (which, in itself, begs the question whether the commenter really considered and thought about those images...).
In my ideal DPCtopia, this would have been a thread celebrating an image that someone took and someone else loved. Some would agree, appreciate it getting a spotlight as they would have otherwise missed it. Others might disagree, but respectfully so. And those disagreeing would not be labeled and demeaned by those who liked it, nor the other way round. Some discussion of what makes it work for some, what made it not work for others, and perhaps a bit of seeing the image in a new way, whether or not it changed one's feelings about it. And the winning images would not have been disparaged in order to make the presenter's image of choice seem better.
A paraphrased Ray Bradbury quote (because I can't remember it precisely):
"Isn't that what life is all about? The ability to go around and look through the other person's eyes and say 'Oh, so that's how you see it? That's very interesting! I must remember that...."
To me, this is at least what photography is all about.... |
Mm, Utopia. Would that it could ever be.
Unfortunately, like your original assertion that people like pekesty are 'pissing into the wind', you're pretty much just doing the same thing here too. Want utopia? Be pro-active about it and set the example.
Me? I've tried a number of times to do just that, but lost the will. It fell on deaf ears, and got lost beneath the wave of disinterest. The only thing people seem to respond to, really, is this 'pissing into the wind'.
Sad? Yes. |
Yea, I think I lost the will, too. My membership is due in a few days, and this is the first time where I am questioning the value I am able to get here--mainly due to time constraints, I just can't spend the time here I used to, and it was that time spent studying images and helpful threads that was so useful and enjoyable.
"Wanting Utopia" is, by definition, futile, is it not? Or is it? Which one of us is closed minded, here, now, Chopper? Bam Wow! :-) |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 06:00:56 PM · #99 |
| It would have scored better if it wasn't upside down... |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 06:08:05 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It would have scored better if it wasn't upside down... |
Maybe the reason ZZ was DRAWN to it was that it was hung upside down?
R. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 03:20:10 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: 08/03/2025 03:20:10 PM EDT.
|
