| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/28/2003 01:40:38 PM · #76 |
Just writing to say that I loved the last post from Ursula.
It shows that she is a wonderful person (BTW: I never doubted it) and it makes it clear where she actually stands (BTW: I had my dark rant day too here and it was much worse than yours. Ultimately I did not feel stupid just because I am stupid! =)
Everybody will have noticed how 'stock' photography has become an issue in many threads and in more than one post (not in the Ursula's one), that was associated with Kiwi.
I just tought that Kiwi's achievements were huge, that his photography is there for everybody to see it and that to call in 'Art' to somehow criticize 'Stock' photography was in many cases childish.
I am sure that I will not offend with my words people (like John for instance) who has a well defined idea about it and that only coincidentally partecipated to the discussion. But I invite everybody else to recognize (for their own sake actually...) that Kiwi's photo were far superior to most and that his consistency over the long period has been nearly super-human (besides, have you tought of invoking doping? Maybe beer could be considered as such...).
I am not surprised at all about Kiwi's explosion in terms of doubles because the quality of his photography was already there.
Apart from this clarification, I don't have a precise opinion yet about 'Art' (with the capital 'A') and contests.
I tend to think that they are not compatible but then I look at History and I see many Old Masters being supported (for their talent, of course) by Popes and Kings and modern artists who (with few exceptions) sell their work for lots of money in galleries...
Is it Art just if and only if you buy it? (Just a question..)
Message edited by author 2003-11-28 13:48:25. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 02:04:39 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by glimpses:
Is it Art just if and only if you buy it? (Just a question..)
|
No. Art is art before, while and after someone buys it. A stone is a stone before, while and after someone buys it. Some very good art also exists despite of money.
However, money is needed to feed those who create art, as money is also needed to feed those who do not.
Message edited by author 2003-11-28 14:08:40. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 02:19:04 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by achiral:
80-90% of people who believe technical excellence and conveying a clear message is primary
vs.
10-20% of people who feel expression and ambiguity yields the best photos
how can we combine the 2 and learn from each other? i think that's the key. |
Expression (?) and ambiguity? Ambiguity, certainly, is not a characteristic of what makes a piece 'artistic'. Art instead, like science, insists on fact and struggles to achieve its particular facts with 'clarity' and articulation. |
you are putting words in people's mouths as usual. i'm just stating how the results tend to end up in my eyes. just look at what wins and what doesn't. by ambiguous i mean the people whose photos need more time than the 10-20 seconds given each photo by the large majority of viewers on dpc. photos that don't spell everything out right away don't tend to do so well. i'm not attacking artistic photos because like i said i'd like to develop that for myself and don't see much presence of it on dpc, which is fine.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 02:22:14 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by achiral:
80-90% of people who believe technical excellence and conveying a clear message is primary
vs.
10-20% of people who feel expression and ambiguity yields the best photos
how can we combine the 2 and learn from each other? i think that's the key. |
Expression (?) and ambiguity? Ambiguity, certainly, is not a characteristic of what makes a piece 'artistic'. Art instead, like science, insists on fact and struggles to achieve its particular facts with 'clarity' and articulation. |
you are putting words in people's mouths as usual. i'm just stating how the results tend to end up in my eyes. just look at what wins and what doesn't. by ambiguous i mean the people whose photos need more time than the 10-20 seconds given each photo by the large majority of viewers on dpc. photos that don't spell everything out right away don't tend to do so well. i'm not attacking artistic photos because like i said i'd like to develop that for myself and don't see much presence of it on dpc, which is fine. |
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, and neither am I in the habit of doing so. Instead, I quoted yours. I do, however, understand and accept your qualifyier. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 02:34:36 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[...]If you - or anyone else - finds that the conflict of interest between your personal and public stance is too great to endure, then it should be incumbent on you to STEP DOWN.
Please don't take this personally, this is the general way I would feel towards anyone in this situation. |
You probably should start a movement to have me removed then. |
Sounds a bit petulant, with respect John. He was expressing his personal opinion that Site Council members should, if they can't be bothered to follow the rules, at least not actively advocate disregarding them.
You were fast enough to defend your right to express your opinions on how you should ignore challenge topics, perhaps you would care to afford magnetic the same respect.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Should there be no room and liberty to question the sense (as opposed to the 'letter') of a rule as a matter of personal opinion (so qualified as one in John's post)? |
Well, there's a conflict of interest there. When John posts he is well known as a Site Council member and his opinion apparently carries a lot of weight. He wasn't simply expressing the opinion "I think the rule asking to take into account the challenge topic should be changed", he was actively declaring that he disregarded it.
To compare, it's fine for a politician to say that they disagree with a law on speeding, and even to actively work against it and I have no problem with it. But to announce that they speed everywhere because they disagree with the law is less acceptable.
ESPECIALLY with a site like this, which relies heavily on an honour system, the way to change rules that you don't agree with should be to argue for it, not to break the rules. What next, John starts spot-editing all his entries because of his well-known opinion on that rule? After all, we'd never spot it because he's talented enough to do it well. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 02:43:47 PM · #81 |
This has nothing to do with my being married to him but I have to say that I agree 100% with the post above by Ganders and also with what Magnetic had to say.
It's not an issue of being allowed to have opinions. I think site council are permitted, indeed encouraged, to voice opinion and be active in pushing for progress of the site, where it's something supported broadly by users.
What I disagree with is a site council member deciding that, because they don't like an aspect of the site rules, that they will ignore them. I know John has too much honour and self respect to cheat on his entries but I can understand the point made that if a site council feels it's OK to ignore one basic tenet of the site because he disagrees with it, why can't other users ignore the tenets they disagree with.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 02:47:41 PM · #82 |
| This is all beginning to sound a little tragic for something that's supposed to be a pastime. :/ |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:07:14 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Sounds a bit petulant, with respect John. He was expressing his personal opinion that Site Council members should, if they can't be bothered to follow the rules, at least not actively advocate disregarding them. |
Sorry, but I have never advocated anything.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:11:32 PM · #84 |
> Kavey and ganders
Although you both made your points very well, I feel that your stance is quite 'technical' here, building on a more legal and literal reading than what the context warrants. Instead, I think the issue is and should remain an ethical one. If we can accept and work with this, we, advantageously, should also accept that John's semi-official 'function' here is accompanied by a humanely private one. Since he 'is' both, we cannot foreclude one. Both functions, ethically and ultimately, depend on his 'conscience' for integrity.
If his conscience prompts him to question the sense of a rule, this, IMHO, enhances his integrity as a 'functionary'. In other words, to me, it shows backbone.
The examples you cite could be extended to analogies of Eichman being 'responsible' to a fascist regime, while there was no evidence of a conscience preventing his participation in the artrocities that resulted from a lack thereof.
If we had more politicians, bureaucrats, judges or 'officials' who'd allow their humanity and convictions to be transparant when there is fog, well, I don't think, this would be a bad thing.
Message edited by author 2003-11-28 15:12:45. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:20:02 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
If his conscience prompts him to question the sense of a rule, this, IMHO, enhances his integrity as a 'functionary'. In other words, to me, it shows backbone.
|
I have no problem with him questioning it. In fact, I genuinely encourage it. I have more of a problem with him ignoring it, and advertising the fact.
John, you may not have advocated it in the sense of explicitly saying "I think everyone should break the rules" but you have to accept some responsibility for saying, as a Council member, "Well I break this rule".
Ok, it's a pointless argument because you don't see any conflict, feel entirely justified ignoring the rules that you don't approve of and disagree with my point of view. That's fine, but I think I'll save everybodies pixels and go back to lurking. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:23:44 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Jon Lucas:
This is all beginning to sound a little tragic for something that's supposed to be a pastime. :/ |
I agree with Jon. Each of us should never forget that it is to have fun... isn't it? |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:24:01 PM · #87 |
You're totally missing the point.
We all have backbone and we all have ideas about what the rules SHOULD be, and none of us have any problem with expressing that, OR listening to others express their ideas.
It's what happens when someone who has been chosen to uphold the rules openly and publically disregards them that there is a problem.
This isn't a governmental bureacracy where it's a matter of someone rebelling -- we are all friends here, and for someone to just go 'maverick' and break all the rules is like saying they don't have a very high opinion of, or respect for, that friendship.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
> Kavey and ganders
Although you both made your points very well, I feel that your stance is quite 'technical' here, building on a more legal and literal reading than what the context warrants. Instead, I think the issue is and should remain an ethical one. If we can accept and work with this, we, advantageously, should also accept that John's semi-official 'function' here is accompanied by a humanely private one. Since he 'is' both, we cannot foreclude one. Both functions, ethically and ultimately, depend on his 'conscience' for integrity.
If his conscience prompts him to question the sense of a rule, this, IMHO, enhances his integrity as a 'functionary'. In other words, to me, it shows backbone.
The examples you cite could be extended to analogies of Eichman being 'responsible' to a fascist regime, while there was no evidence of a conscience preventing his participation in the artrocities that resulted from a lack thereof.
If we had more politicians, bureaucrats, judges or 'officials' who'd allow their humanity and convictions to be transparant when there is fog, well, I don't think, this would be a bad thing. |
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:25:12 PM · #88 |
John didn't advocate breaking the submission rules {spot editing,illegal filters},he is just saying that he would vote higher high quality artistic photo even is not being describet by the particular challenge rules(take photo of a white bird flying low ... etc)IMO
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:27:52 PM · #89 |
nah dude. the rules say 'take the challenge into consideration' and he said he wont.
Originally posted by pitsaman:
John didn't advocate breaking the submission rules {spot editing,illegal filters},he is just saying that he would vote higher high quality artistic photo even is not being describet by the particular challenge rules(take photo of a white bird flying low ... etc)IMO |
Message edited by author 2003-11-28 15:31:21.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:28:11 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
If we had more politicians, bureaucrats, judges or 'officials' who'd allow their humanity and convictions to be transparant when there is fog, well, I don't think, this would be a bad thing. |
I agree and I add that unfortunately it's not about having 'more' because there aren't any.. so even to have 'some' would be wonderful... the world of our time remembers Titanic to me.. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:31:27 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
If his conscience prompts him to question the sense of a rule, this, IMHO, enhances his integrity as a 'functionary'. In other words, to me, it shows backbone.
|
I have no problem with him questioning it. In fact, I genuinely encourage it. I have more of a problem with him ignoring it, and advertising the fact.
John, you may not have advocated it in the sense of explicitly saying "I think everyone should break the rules" but you have to accept some responsibility for saying, as a Council member, "Well I break this rule".
Ok, it's a pointless argument because you don't see any conflict, feel entirely justified ignoring the rules that you don't approve of and disagree with my point of view. That's fine, but I think I'll save everybodies pixels and go back to lurking. |
Here's the rule: "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly."
I quote with stress "...users are asked...".
He's not ignoring it. He's, apparently, quite aware of the rule and chooses to vote according to his convictions. A good thing to base any vote on, IMO.
Since no rule is 'broken', he cannot, justifyibly, be accused of advertising or advocating a 'breaking' of rules.
Message edited by author 2003-11-28 15:31:58. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:33:23 PM · #92 |
zz et al .. you're whole discussion hinges on a technicality
john is saying he doesnt like the ideas of challenges so he doesnt vote as if they were in effect ..
whether that breaks the letter of any rule, that's directly in opposition of the site's spirit ..
otherwise, let's just call it photosig.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:35:29 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
john is saying he doesnt like the ideas of challenges so he doesnt vote as if they were in effect ..
|
I continue to be blown away. I never said this anywhere. Where did you find this information?
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:39:37 PM · #94 |
jmsetzler, earlier in this thread (11/28/2003 11:42:52 AM ), said:
"I'm one of those who doesn't consider the challenge topic. "
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
john is saying he doesnt like the ideas of challenges so he doesnt vote as if they were in effect ..
|
I continue to be blown away. I never said this anywhere. Where did you find this information? |
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:40:21 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
You're totally missing the point.
We all have backbone and we all have ideas about what the rules SHOULD be, and none of us have any problem with expressing that, OR listening to others express their ideas.
It's what happens when someone who has been chosen to uphold the rules openly and publically disregards them that there is a problem.
This isn't a governmental bureacracy where it's a matter of someone rebelling -- we are all friends here, and for someone to just go 'maverick' and break all the rules is like saying they don't have a very high opinion of, or respect for, that friendship.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
> Kavey and ganders
Although you both made your points very well, I feel that your stance is quite 'technical' here, building on a more legal and literal reading than what the context warrants. Instead, I think the issue is and should remain an ethical one. If we can accept and work with this, we, advantageously, should also accept that John's semi-official 'function' here is accompanied by a humanely private one. Since he 'is' both, we cannot foreclude one. Both functions, ethically and ultimately, depend on his 'conscience' for integrity.
If his conscience prompts him to question the sense of a rule, this, IMHO, enhances his integrity as a 'functionary'. In other words, to me, it shows backbone.
The examples you cite could be extended to analogies of Eichman being 'responsible' to a fascist regime, while there was no evidence of a conscience preventing his participation in the artrocities that resulted from a lack thereof.
If we had more politicians, bureaucrats, judges or 'officials' who'd allow their humanity and convictions to be transparant when there is fog, well, I don't think, this would be a bad thing. |
|
I'm not at all convinced I missed 'the point' and, certainly, not 'totally'. I do recognize that you have a different point. And I welcome it. |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:40:25 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
nah dude. the rules say 'take the challenge into consideration' and he said he wont.
Originally posted by pitsaman:
John didn't advocate breaking the submission rules {spot editing,illegal filters},he is just saying that he would vote higher high quality artistic photo even is not being describet by the particular challenge rules(take photo of a white bird flying low ... etc)IMO |
|
His submissions are up to that rule,and taking consideration doesn't mean "MUST" ! |
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:43:05 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
nah dude. the rules say 'take the challenge into consideration' and he said he wont.
Originally posted by pitsaman:
John didn't advocate breaking the submission rules {spot editing,illegal filters},he is just saying that he would vote higher high quality artistic photo even is not being describet by the particular challenge rules(take photo of a white bird flying low ... etc)IMO |
|
His submissions are up to that rule,and taking consideration doesn't mean "MUST" ! |
Correct. ;-)
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:43:37 PM · #98 |
Well, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that no one on the site council can express an opinion without some fear of backlash . . That was what I mostly wanted to clarify.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I'm not at all convinced I missed 'the point' and, certainly, not 'totally'. I do recognize that you have a different point. And I welcome it. |
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:46:47 PM · #99 |
That's absolutely true.
But imagine you start a business, and get someone working for you. You say, nicely, 'you should try to save the business money' ..
well the person you hired doesn't care about what you asked them to do .. they say 'hey you're business's whole concept is wack' ..
they tell you their ideas to change it, and you think 'ok well some of that is doable but alot of it isnt what we want to do'...
so they get mad and they quit. ok, makes sense. . .
but then they come back and ask for their job back. . You decide, since they had redeeming qualities, to bring them back, and you think ok, well at least they 'get it now'. this place is what it is.
you keep them as an employee but they keep on harping on about this stuff and actively doing stuff that messes with your company.
would you STILL keep them as an employee? even if you say yes, i dont think most would.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
[quote=magnetic9999]
His submissions are up to that rule,and taking consideration doesn't mean "MUST" ! |
Correct. ;-) |
Message edited by author 2003-11-28 15:48:17.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 03:53:00 PM · #100 |
Wait,here,you are mixing up participation and submission RULES with how to vote explanation!
One are rules and how to vote is something else,I don't see how someone can be guilty if he or she have its own voting opinion! |
|
