Who is going to win? - DPChallenge Forums

10/17/2002 11:19:33 PM · #51

I have said this again and again and it will probably sound like an elitist -- unless you h ave been making images for a while, you're not qualified to judge an image. It is the same as getting someone who has never played violin to judge how good a violinist is versus anotehr violinist, they wouldn't have the slightest clue. 90% of the population have very little music talent -- by that, the discernable means to understand music, understand pitch, etc. (Btw, i do have perfect pitch in case you're wondering :)) To them, an advance amateur vioinist and a professional would sound the same, but there is a world of difference between the two.

I'd guess the same is true for images.

Your statement on putting down the audience is not what i said -- an audience changes its mind throughout time. When Van Gogh was around, he was destitute, poor, went insane, cut off his ear and died penniless. No one liked his art. Today his art is priceless because finally the audience can see what he sees. Would the world be better off if Van Gogh just give up on art when everyone at the time hated it? If DPc audience was at Van Gogh's time and they're judging art, then Van Gogh would have gotten "This is crap 1"

Originally posted by Zeissman:
That is right, it is up to us. But you seem to think that you decide what is creative and what is not. Many of the photos that I see that people call creative, look like things I saw in high school art class. If the only thing that is communicated is shock and disgust, then the photo is not doing a good job.

Although I do not think your photo fits either the shocking or disgusting catagory, I also do not understand how it fits the challenge. I cannot wait to hear an explaination.

But an artist putting down the audience for not appreciating his work, is like a stand-up comedian yelling at his audience for not getting his jokes.

Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Then perhaps your photo reflects what the general audiece taste is like on here if you do that each and every week. And whether that's good or bad is up to you.

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
[i]Originally posted by paganini:
[i] In the end the photographer on here has to decide whether they want to produce something that they themselves may not necessarily like in order to please the audience, OR, to produce something they like.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. I can and have and will continue to post photos here that do both.
[/i]

[/i]

[/i]

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/17/2002 11:17:42 PM.

10/17/2002 11:23:52 PM · #52

I know one thing: people wouldn't be listening to Britney Spears in 10 years but there would still be people listening to Bach. And yes, classical music audience in today's world is small, but it lasts a lot longer than her, or the Beatles. Far more people today listen to classical music than the Beatles REGULARLY. Beatles were popular for its time but no longer so becuase now it's replaced with the same commercialized music such as Spears or N'Sync.

Popular art is just that, POPULAR, but doesn't necessarily mean it's good. And if that's elitist, then maybe it's because i have seen something you haven't :)

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
the beatles were tremendously popular, very financially successful, yet they're also recognized as one of the most creative rock and roll bands of all time.

they are an example of an artist for whom "doing what came naturally" also happened to to fit in with the tastes of the public.

To the benefit of both.

; )

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
[i]What's unfortunate about that is that the arts and croissant crowd thinks i'm some sort of panderer... o well... i'm just an amateur. I shoot what feels good and post them if i like them... :)

[/i]

10/17/2002 11:33:50 PM · #53

And do you still listen to the Beatles REGULARLY? or just reminded you of your youth? I'll bet htat htere are more "young people" listening to classical music than Beatles TODAY. Beatles faded, like all other rock music and popular music. It faded, because it's design to make money and sell as much album as it can while it is still hot. Same goes for most rock bands.

200 years ago people listened to Beethoven, they still listen to him today. Would Beatles withstood the test of time? At the rate they have faded in just 40 years, they won't.

Anyone who compares Beethoven's 9th Symphony and Beatles and said that Beatles is better, is obviously clueless about music :)

Originally posted by myqyl:
I might not be able to speak in the context of this thread since I don't think I've ever heard Britney Spears sing (except in a Pepsi ad), but I do recall quiet well what the 'art' crowd of the day said about the Beatles... Coffee shops were full of folks reciting horrid poetry while banging on bongos saying the Beatles were sell out, no talents with no depth.

Now nearly 40 years later I can still remember all 4 of their names, but I'd be hard pressed to remember 3 names of the bongo Beatle bashers... 'Popular' doesn't mean 'sell-out'... Perhaps history will be kinder to Britney Spears then the 'artists' of her day... Again, I can't say since I've never heard her work... I'm just thinking that 'Envy' is a likely motive of those that think they are artistic for bashing those actually are.

John, while I wouldn't equate your work to the Beatles, you are clearly technically talented with a vision and taste that appeals to the masses. Dylan maybe?

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

10/17/2002 11:43:16 PM · #54

dude. LOTS of people still listen to the beatles. young people.

and it depends on what you mean by 'better' .. is beehthoven more complex? sure. but that's about the only objective criterion of comparison. the rest is subjective.

Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Anyone who compares Beethoven's 9th Symphony and Beatles and said that Beatles is better, is obviously clueless about music :)

Journey

Canon PowerShot G3

10/17/2002 11:44:41 PM · #55

Originally posted by paganini:
. That's same comparison as "Because Britney Spears outsold all classical musician last year, classical music is worse than Britney Spears". Translation: "Because DPc votes xxx image as highest, it must be better."

Ah, yes, I see, thanks paganini. The way you rephrased the Spears sentence (notice that her initials are BS?) makes me almost tempted to adopt it as a signature ;)

Now, please, paganini, get your nose out of that Playboy and start studying Michelangelo.

rapsiii3

Kodak DC3400

10/17/2002 11:45:13 PM · #56

Originally posted by Jak:
There is an unfortunate and probably elitist strain in this discussion that suggests that popular art equates to "bad" art in some way.

Shakespeare was extraordinarily popular in his day, and remains so today. Does that make his work bad? According to some here, clearly it does, but I think that a moment's commeon sense will prove that is hardly the case.

Are "The Beatles" better or worse than Bach? Neither. They are different styles of music, which is exactly why you cannot compare Ms Spears to Bach, for example. (It would be possible to compare The Beatles and Britney Spears, however.)

And, yes, in my opinion Rembrandt was a significantly better painter than Picasso. But, that is just MY opinion and MY opinion is worth exactly the same as anyone else's.

I can't see how a comparisson of Rembrant an Picasso is in any way conducive to a discussion of artistic values. Does anyone really question if Rembrant was a better painter than Picasso? Who are these people? Where do they hang out? Is there a special place in Hell for the stupid? No one with any vision at all could possibly question which was the better painter. But as for the question of artistry, there is a matter for discussion. Opinions may very on some points, but on such points as technical skill, we must agree or forfiet our opinion.Fortunatly, as far art is concerned, technical skill is not the proper measure. Neil Simon or Shakespear? We'll be laughing at the "Bard" in a thousand years, while Simons jokes are already dated.
texttext

10/17/2002 11:53:23 PM · #57

Well, i haven't heard anyone I know of ever listening to the Beatles on a daily basis. I know i hear classical music on a daily basis.

Well, put it this way, i think classical music has explored pretty much all there is to be explored in music, well, Western music as far as the "scale" is concerned (if you want to compare Indian music or CHinese music versus Western, then you h ave a point of one scale versuses the other, but if you compare the same musical scale.... and hence, TONality and chords), Beatles haven't shown anything new that classical music, opera, has already shown 200 years ago. They have a bunch of "cutesie" songs, which made them popluar in the 60's but lost its time in 80's and 90's, as it should being its also called "POPULAR MUSIC", i.e "POP MUSIC". It's popular, for the time being.

Oh, and I ocassionally play classical music too, just not as much lately. Sad, i used to practice about 4 hours a day in college while I was NOT a music major and used to do about 8 hours day during the summer.

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
dude. LOTS of people still listen to the beatles. young people.

and it depends on what you mean by 'better' .. is beehthoven more complex? sure. but that's about the only objective criterion of comparison. the rest is subjective.

Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Anyone who compares Beethoven's 9th Symphony and Beatles and said that Beatles is better, is obviously clueless about music :)

10/17/2002 11:56:02 PM · #58

LOL, i never heard anyone refer Spears initials as BS.

Speaking about the Playboy comment, ya know, i'll have to admit, LOOKING at Britney while she performs MAY be MORE entertaining than looking at some old classical geezer perform on stage. But once the sound pours over, there just isn't any comparison. Well, once you get through the teenage girl screaming, the same way they used to scream for Beatles.....

Originally posted by Journey:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]. That's same comparison as "Because Britney Spears outsold all classical musician last year, classical music is worse than Britney Spears". Translation: "Because DPc votes xxx image as highest, it must be better."

Ah, yes, I see, thanks paganini. The way you rephrased the Spears sentence (notice that her initials are BS?) makes me almost tempted to adopt it as a signature ;)

Now, please, paganini, get your nose out of that Playboy and start studying Michelangelo.

[/i]

Journey

Canon PowerShot G3

10/18/2002 12:01:49 AM · #59

Originally posted by rapsiii3:

Does anyone really question if Rembrant was a better painter than Picasso? Who are these people? Where do they hang out? Is there a special place in Hell for the stupid? No one with any vision at all could possibly question which was the better painter.

Do you always dismiss any opinion differing from your own as "stupid"?
I have never heard any art instructor, art critic, artist, categorically state that Rembrandt was a better painter than Picasso. But since YOU do, perhaps you can educate us, unenlightened dimwits.

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

10/18/2002 12:16:57 AM · #60

Originally posted by paganini:
Well, i haven't heard anyone I know of ever listening to the Beatles on a daily basis. I know i hear classical music on a daily basis.

Is it not ironic, that I, a 23 year old, wandered upon this thread at the very moment I am listening to the Beatles Greatest hits. One of, oh, about 8 Beatles CD's I have.
I'm not joining in the discussion, just thought that to be really funny.
<singing> Take a sad song, and make it beeeetttter, remembeeer to let her into you heart</singing>
I think I'm off to bed now. Take care everyone, and have a good night.
~Heather~

Jak

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

10/18/2002 12:43:09 AM · #61

Some people should move into the real world for a change, read Forbes highest paid entertainers, for instance. Oddly, The Beatles are there in the top 10 while Bach didn't seem to make it.

10/18/2002 12:43:13 AM · #62

Ugh, the great pollution of our youth :) just kidding.

Tony

Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Well, i haven't heard anyone I know of ever listening to the Beatles on a daily basis. I know i hear classical music on a daily basis.

Is it not ironic, that I, a 23 year old, wandered upon this thread at the very moment I am listening to the Beatles Greatest hits. One of, oh, about 8 Beatles CD's I have.
I'm not joining in the discussion, just thought that to be really funny.
<singing> Take a sad song, and make it beeeetttter, remembeeer to let her into you heart</singing>
I think I'm off to bed now. Take care everyone, and have a good night.
~Heather~

[/i]

RLS

Canon EOS-10D

10/18/2002 01:10:43 AM · #63

Originally posted by paganini:
They have a bunch of "cutesie" songs, which made them popluar in the 60's but lost its time in 80's and 90's, as it should being its also called "POPULAR MUSIC", i.e "POP MUSIC". It's popular, for the time being.

Paganini,

I assume you realize that popularity was a major driving force behind the musical masters you so eloquently speak of. Each composer from Bach to Brahms to Beethoven to Mozart to DeBussy to Copeland to Gershwin to ... composed and performed their music for the sake of popularity as well as art itself. This was not only their art but their livelihood. Each artist wanted the adulation that came with popular recognition of his work. When each master was alive he may have been recognized by his generation as being good, thus popular, and with that recognition his standard of living was raised by monetary or equivilent personal gain. Little did each master or their generation realize how significantly these contributions would affect future generations.

It is way too early to dismiss the popular artists of this era as being insignificant. If we close our minds on the art and artists of today and limit our definition of enduring art to that of eras gone by then what are we saying about the human spirit of today?

On a second note ...

Why the hangup about the quality of DCPers here? We aren't artists. We don't claim to be. We do this for fun. There aren't too many if any of us making a living from this.

We just like photographs. We like digital cameras.

We each want to become better photographers and hope to learn from our experiences here. We participate because it is an open forum for our pasttime.

I, as well as most of us, will confess to probably being unqualified compared to professional or even better amateur photographers to vote or comment on the images entered each week. But by voting and commenting we are exposed to all types of photography that we would not be exposed to if we did not or could not participate.

I do hope you are enjoying DP Challenge for what it is and not letting those things that it is not get in your way.

Bob

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

10/18/2002 01:45:16 AM · #64

i think you are just a hair out of touch : )

first of all an enjoyment of pop does not preclude an enjoyment of any other form of music.

secondly, it is the human and poetic sentiments the beatles are able to put into their music that gives them such large cross-generational appeal.

far beyond their technical explorations. not everything is about technical mastery. some things 'speak eloquently'....

Originally posted by paganini:
Ugh, the great pollution of our youth :) just kidding.

Tony

Originally posted by hbunch7187:
[i]Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Well, i haven't heard anyone I know of ever listening to the Beatles on a daily basis. I know i hear classical music on a daily basis.

Is it not ironic, that I, a 23 year old, wandered upon this thread at the very moment I am listening to the Beatles Greatest hits. One of, oh, about 8 Beatles CD's I have.
I'm not joining in the discussion, just thought that to be really funny.
<singing> Take a sad song, and make it beeeetttter, remembeeer to let her into you heart</singing>
I think I'm off to bed now. Take care everyone, and have a good night.
~Heather~

[/i]

[/i]

myqyl

Nikon D3100

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

10/18/2002 01:55:58 AM · #65

Originally posted by paganini:
And do you still listen to the Beatles REGULARLY?
<clip>
Anyone who compares Beethoven's 9th Symphony and Beatles and said that Beatles is better, is obviously clueless about music :)

Yes I do... As do many that actually understand what makes some music timeless.

I would compare the Sgt. Pepper album (not to mention Rubber Soul) to any musical work in history and not find it lacking.

However, I don't think I'll bother trying to explain why to you since don't seem to hear anything but what you say anyway...

10/18/2002 02:47:58 AM · #66

That's absolutely not true.

Beethoven, Bach, etc. wrote for mostly aristocrats. Maybe this is where the "Elitism" comes about. Because only aristocrats can comission their work. Some wrote for the Church, as Bach did, and his work were not discovered until Mendelssohn's time, who is also working for aristocrats. The normal POPULOUS at the time have very little access to the music.

Michaelangelo's work, for example was mostly commissioned by the catholic church. There are several exceptions in the art world where the artist is literally, a starving artist. That's pretty rare in the music world, though there are notable exceptions. Mozart for one, was also dependent on the aristocrats but he didn't really managed his money well and died penniless and someone just dump his body in the middle of nowhere and no one knows where he was buried.

But they are mainly supported by aristocrats. Even in today's world, the classical music is public funded, and usually the funds came from the wealthy and the rich and large corporations. They are also the type that would collect art.

So if that's elitism, well, maybe i am guilty :) But classical music TODAY is far more accessible to the normal person than it was in the 1800's. Not many people have listened to Beethoven's Piano Sonatas in teh 1800's because they are mainly performed for aristocrats and the concerts are usually private.

Originally posted by RLS:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]They have a bunch of "cutesie" songs, which made them popluar in the 60's but lost its time in 80's and 90's, as it should being its also called "POPULAR MUSIC", i.e "POP MUSIC". It's popular, for the time being.

Paganini,

I assume you realize that popularity was a major driving force behind the musical masters you so eloquently speak of. Each composer from Bach to Brahms to Beethoven to Mozart to DeBussy to Copeland to Gershwin to ... composed and performed their music for the sake of popularity as well as art itself. This was not only their art but their livelihood. Each artist wanted the adulation that came with popular recognition of his work. When each master was alive he may have been recognized by his generation as being good, thus popular, and with that recognition his standard of living was raised by monetary or equivilent personal gain. Little did each master or their generation realize how significantly these contributions would affect future generations.

It is way too early to dismiss the popular artists of this era as being insignificant. If we close our minds on the art and artists of today and limit our definition of enduring art to that of eras gone by then what are we saying about the human spirit of today?

On a second note ...

Why the hangup about the quality of DCPers here? We aren't artists. We don't claim to be. We do this for fun. There aren't too many if any of us making a living from this.

We just like photographs. We like digital cameras.

We each want to become better photographers and hope to learn from our experiences here. We participate because it is an open forum for our pasttime.

I, as well as most of us, will confess to probably being unqualified compared to professional or even better amateur photographers to vote or comment on the images entered each week. But by voting and commenting we are exposed to all types of photography that we would not be exposed to if we did not or could not participate.

I do hope you are enjoying DP Challenge for what it is and not letting those things that it is not get in your way.

Bob

[/i]

10/18/2002 02:58:16 AM · #67

I'm not talking about technical mastery only with classical music. I am talking about the whole thing in general. Someone was comparing that Beatles and other pop cultured music is at the same level as Beethoven, Brahms, etc. and I disagree. Some music last for a long time, Bach has been around for 300 years. The expression in his music, both technically and emotionally, far exceeds that of any pop music. That's why his music survived.

There were a ton of Beatlemaniacs back in the 60's, but now, there is hardly anyone still listening to them on a regular basis. I am not arguing whether you can enjoy it or not but to compare it to Beethoven is simply insulting.

The original point of the post was that someone mentioned popular things doesn't necessarily mean bad. Welll, it doens't have to be bad, but if something is POPULAR, it most likely AVERAGE. Why? It's the normal bellcurve, the average person is simply AVERAGE, right? :) And the average person's quality and sensibility is average as well. It may sound elitist, but so be it. All i am saying is taht just because something gets the popular vote, does not necessarily imply it's any good or better, in fact it is usually bad because i do think being average is not that great, politely put.

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i think you are just a hair out of touch : )

first of all an enjoyment of pop does not preclude an enjoyment of any other form of music.

secondly, it is the human and poetic sentiments the beatles are able to put into their music that gives them such large cross-generational appeal.

far beyond their technical explorations. not everything is about technical mastery. some things 'speak eloquently'....

Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Ugh, the great pollution of our youth :) just kidding.

Tony

Originally posted by hbunch7187:
[i]Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Well, i haven't heard anyone I know of ever listening to the Beatles on a daily basis. I know i hear classical music on a daily basis.

Is it not ironic, that I, a 23 year old, wandered upon this thread at the very moment I am listening to the Beatles Greatest hits. One of, oh, about 8 Beatles CD's I have.
I'm not joining in the discussion, just thought that to be really funny.
<singing> Take a sad song, and make it beeeetttter, remembeeer to let her into you heart</singing>
I think I'm off to bed now. Take care everyone, and have a good night.
~Heather~

[/i]

[/i]

[/i]

10/18/2002 03:30:21 AM · #68

It's a moot point to argue: the normal person wouldn't like classical music because they don't understand it and couldn't understand it.

I know quite a few people who started violin at the same time I did as a child. Very few made it past 6th grade, and even fewer made it past high school as far as their interest in it, which has a lot to do with the ability to progress and play well (no one wants to do something that they can't get any further in). There are probably about 2 million classical violinists (that was the figure in the 80's, might be less today) in the world, AMATEURS and LITTLE KIDS included. That's a tiny amount compared to the world poopulation. The reason? Music isn't something that you can train and train and train and eventually you'd be a world class musician in. Just doesn't happen that way. Sure it takes hard work to get to that level, but all the hardwork won't make you OR me into someone like Itzhak Perlman.

Let me ask you this: can you read a sheet music, ANY sheet music, calssical, blah blah blah, and KNOW the expression of the composer simply by reading it? (i.e. no piano playing, nothing, just reading the sheet music and hear it in your head without playing an instrument) The average person wouldn't b eable to do that, much less on anything else other than simple melodies if they could read sheet music(i.e. POPULAR music) And it takes years to be able to do that and that's the very basic knowledge you need to know expression in music, the ability to have it in your head whatever it is written and to be able to knowwhere the climax points are, what the composer is trying to say, what style it is, how the tempo and structure of the piece hold togher, and if it's a symphony, how each instrument relate to the other in the harmony. Most peopel i know who could read sheet music and do the things i have mention above, could compose simple tunes and chords, etc. that makes up a song. But to do something like a Symphony or a simple piano sonata like Beethoven is something COMPLETELY different than a simple tune or song.

I am using music as a reference because I know it well. And i suspect the same type of training and talent required is true for visual arts as well (photography or painting), the only thing different is one uses hearing hte other uses vision, but the expressive part is similar and i understood that part in music pretty well. it will take years and some serious TALENT to get good with it. And the average person isn't qualified to judge what is good and what isn't, other than that they LIKE IT OR NOT. THat's my WHOLE point. I know it sounds bad and elitist but it's true. And thus, the point was that just because popular vote thinks it's good, doesn't mean it is GOOD, because the AVERAGE populous do not have the qualification to judge it as "good or bad", only if they "LIKE IT OR NOT". Hence, they choose Britney Spears, and Beatles (though i'll give credits to Beatles to be the one of the best popular bands, but i'd laugh whenever someone tries to compare them against Beethoven. you can combine all of Beatles songs and it won't match the 9th symphony, not even the first movement of it). It's not just the technical stuff, it's also the DEPTH of the expression in the music by Beethoven versus some of the popular stuff.

This doens't mean that i don't enjoy looking at photographs on DPc, not at all, but i am just somewhat annoyed whenever people tries to put up the notion that the "winning photographs" is somehow the "best" ones, where we ended up reading their tutorials on composition, blah blah blah. Now, if the person is a professional that has been doing it for the last 20 years, then i'll listen carefully to what they have to say and there are people on here that I think have a lot of talent and that's why i'd like comments with names in the challenges so i know who said what, rather than to read through everything and give an equal weight to every one (i apologize if i offended you by saying so). Simply put, if i were to do a performance in a church for example (the typical venue for these things), the average person would probably think it was pretty good and they wouldn't be able to tell the mistake i have made or other expressive issues -- even I could tell most of the problems that i have made and the improvements in the performance, but hte average audience won't be able to. It took years fo rme to realize my potential and also my LIMITS in music and it never seizes to surprise me whenever I went to see Austin Symphony with friends and they all thought the symphony performance was GREAT and the opera star was awesome, but i could sit there and cringe every time the soprano misses a note or everytime the string section of the orchestra goes out of sync or out of tune, or misses the expression completely. it's a curse :(

Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]And do you still listen to the Beatles REGULARLY?
<clip>
Anyone who compares Beethoven's 9th Symphony and Beatles and said that Beatles is better, is obviously clueless about music :)

Yes I do... As do many that actually understand what makes some music timeless.

I would compare the Sgt. Pepper album (not to mention Rubber Soul) to any musical work in history and not find it lacking.

However, I don't think I'll bother trying to explain why to you since don't seem to hear anything but what you say anyway...
[/i]

chakkobbo

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

10/18/2002 03:48:29 AM · #69

Originally posted by paganini:
I have said this again and again and it will probably sound like an elitist -- unless you have been making images for a while, you're not qualified to judge an image.

PAG - IF THAT'S TRUE, WHY THE HELL, I MEAN WHY THE HELL WOULD THERE BE ANY POINT IN....ANYTHING ????

IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAID THERE, QUIT DPC NOW (WE'RE AMATEURS HERE FOR GOD'S SAKE). WHY WOULD YOU EVER CARE TO KNOW WHAT DPC'ERS THINK??

JAKOB

PS ELITIST IS A MASSIVE, MASSIVE UNDERSTATEMENT

Alecia

Canon EOS-10D

10/18/2002 05:00:27 AM · #70

pag, you really shouldn't stress yourself out like this! I have been reading your discussions for quite awhile now and sometimes you make some very valid points, but then you go and say something that while it might be true, is a given. Yes Britany Spears is popular right now and a few years ago it was the horrid New Kids on the Block and a few years before that, it was eighties pop, etc, so on and so forth. But at the same time there were undercurrents of all different genres of musical styles--somewhat less mainstream but incredibly good nonetheless. Then a few of the really good popular ones like the Beatles, who actually make it up to the superstar status, wind up having staying power. So? More power to them. It would be interesting to see if they are still popular in 200 years. Obviously there is something about them that makes people, me included, still buy their albums.

I dicovered long ago that I have to find what makes me happy and stick with that--and not worry about the things I don't like, regardless of whether people around me like it or not, and not try and convince people that they like "the wrong things". I have never/will never even watched a second of Survivor, but I have friends that I love that do! So? More power to them, too! Same with me for music and photography. Oh, and btw, I used to play violin--my entire family is very musically inclined, my aunt is a concert cellist, my grandfather was a concert violinist. my father a concert violinist and flutist. Now my dad plays guitar, and gasp--the fiddle! Does that make him less because he no longer plays in the classical style? I spent a few years playing the violin before I found out that my voice was worth cultivating. So, I sang for about 10 years--difficult but rewarding classical music. You want to talk about training? I started as a first soprano and by the end was a second alto! That is almost like having to learn four similar instruments, considering the role and demands of each position! I can read sheet music and sight read on demand, and I too, have perfect pitch. But does having a good ear for music mean also one automatically has a good eye for art?

I still love classical to this day and listen to it whenever the mood strikes me. But what I do not do is go around telling people that what they like is not good, or that if it is popular, it is not good. And even though my background and music is in classical music, I am not going to stand here and say that any particular classical artist is better or worse than the stuff I like and listen to on a regular basis. Musically superior, perhaps, but really just different. People aren't inventing new musical notes, they are just finding new and different ways to put them together. I still get a great thrill from listening to, say, Ave Maria, but I also can get the same sense of depth and feeling from a whole lot of other music.

So, who cares if some people here think the top rated picture for the week is the best they have ever seen? Who cares if people like the Beatles better than Mozart? Who cares if some people never see a certain vision portrayed artistically thru someone else? They probably never will and it is ok! That is their deal. I agree with you that people should follow their own vision. But it has been said 1,000,000 times on this site already that not everyone is going to like what everyone else does. That is not a bad thing. Kinda good really, because that keeps us from being homogenous. But if someone is any good at all (and probably even if they aren't!) they are going to appeal to a few.

That is all I hope for really, is just for a few other people to like some of the things i try. No real point in getting fired up about it, people are going to like and do what they want. Who really cares if they are qualified to vote on something or not? Are you? I would know if someone missed a note or went out of key, but who is to say I can judge art? An off key note is an off key note, not rocket science. But art is subjective. Sounds like we have a similar background in artistic training and if I don't think I am qualified to know if some piece of artwork is superior or not, how can you know? Having the soul of an artist does not make a person an instant expert on all forms of artistry. I have not put one iota of the time into photography as in my other forms of artistic expression, and I am learning slowly but surely. But, hey, I know what I like! ;-)

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/18/2002 5:59:06 AM.

magnetic9999