Henri Cartier-Bresson - useless out of focus junk!

06/17/2009 06:40:48 PM · #276

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Henri must've had a really good camera.

that is actually very true. he worked with best equipment of his time.

I seem to remember somethng about a Leica with a 50mm prime lens ...

he used mostly leica 35mm rangefinder with normal 50mm lense. But it seems he also tried wide angle lenses for landscapes.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/17/2009 06:44:07 PM · #277

Just because I found it amusing and just because it is related to something discussed earlier, I thought I would put this up.

"Viewer interpretations of beauty possess two concepts of value: aesthetics and taste. Aesthetics is the philosophical notion of beauty. Taste is a result of education and awareness of elite cultural values; therefore taste can be learned. Taste varies according to class, cultural background, and education."

found here: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

On a separate note (which I think Achoo would appreciate) I recently read an article regarding taste, disgust, and conservative value system. It was pretty fascinating... I'll try to find it...

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/17/2009 07:53:35 PM · #278

Craft is the knowledge of one's tools. "Rule of thirds" has nothing to do with craft.

Making something sharp is the application of craft. Making something blurry is the application of craft.

Art is nothing without craft. Craft is sort of okay without art.

There is confustion here (always) between the maker of the photograph and the viewer of the photograph. There is no craft to viewing a photograph besides wiping the monitor every so often. To critique someone's craft, you have to know what someone is *trying* to do. Figuring out what someone is trying to do, or at least spelling out what one's assumptions are before proceeding, is the only way to properly critique craft. To critique art, you critique what the photo actually does, regardless of what it's trying to do.

It's not so much applying one's education to an image, but rather allowing oneself to be educated by the image itself. The dull image, the 1 or the 3 or the 5, depending on how you vote, is the image that teaches you nothing, not one thing, about itself or about its taker or about you. Those, imho, are the bottom of the barrel.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

06/17/2009 09:57:44 PM · #279

Originally posted by posthumous:

...To critique art, you critique what the photo actually does, regardless of what it's trying to do.
It's not so much applying one's education to an image, but rather allowing oneself to be educated by the image itself...

Not half-bad, pH. Rudimentary and clear.

06/17/2009 11:17:54 PM · #280

Originally posted by dahkota:

Taste is a result of education and awareness of elite cultural values; therefore taste can be learned. Taste varies according to class, cultural background, and education

I think this statement is complete and utter bullshit.

I've known too many people from backgrounds of all of the benefits of all three that were complete and utter wastes of oxygen.

You have to have some basic sense of aesthetics ingrained in your persona to be educable in the finer things.

Paris Hilton is a perfect example of someone with all the advantages in the world who is a total and complete boor.

06/17/2009 11:20:34 PM · #281

Originally posted by posthumous:

To critique someone's craft, you have to know what someone is *trying* to do. Figuring out what someone is trying to do, or at least spelling out what one's assumptions are before proceeding, is the only way to properly critique craft. To critique art, you critique what the photo actually does, regardless of what it's trying to do.

I totally agree with you and this is a letter perfect definition of why I would never sign myself up for the Critique Club.

I am not qualified.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

06/18/2009 07:02:22 AM · #282

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by dahkota:
Taste is a result of education and awareness of elite cultural values; therefore taste can be learned. Taste varies according to class, cultural background, and education

I think this statement is complete and utter bullshit.

I've known too many people from backgrounds of all of the benefits of all three that were complete and utter wastes of oxygen.

You have to have some basic sense of aesthetics ingrained in your persona to be educable in the finer things.

Paris Hilton is a perfect example of someone with all the advantages in the world who is a total and complete boor.

You missed the part about "taste CAN be learned." It doesn't state it is learned by everyone, nor does it state that only rich people can learn it. Additionally, you read into this statement the idea that people with more money have better taste. It didn't say that either; it states tastes vary, not that one taste is better than another. You are projecting your own bias here...

Lets use a different example than cars - try wine. One can spend his entire life enjoying wine, not caring from where it came, what kind of soil in which it grows, or in what year it was harvested. It gives one a nice buzz, goes well with the meal and that is good enough and all one cares to know. On the other hand, one can learn about the different textures, flavors, notes, that comprise different wines, eventually being able to discern what vintage, from where one is drinking, become a real connoisseur, experiencing as many different wines as possible. And no, its not an either/or proposition; there is a continuum. But taste is developed through experience and experience is education.

I'll bet, before you joined DPC, your definition of what comprised a 'good' picture was different than your definition today. You yourself state that you have learned a lot here. Would you state your taste has changed due to your education? Someone else pointed out that DPC was a sub-culture. I would suspect, if it is a sub-culture, that it has its own values (note the same *types* of images repeatedly scoring well in challenges, for example) and those values express its tastes.

BTW - a definition of elite: "The best or most skilled members of a group." While elite is often used to designate economic status, the word is not limited to designating the highest economic status.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

06/18/2009 07:56:39 AM · #283

Originally posted by Intelli:

I agree.. and I appreciate his work, and his composition.. in his era. But the photo orginally posted.. it just has the feel of an abstract, well composed with nice lighting, with a really plain subject. I mean.. what's the point of shooting a guy on a bike, rounding a corner in the street. Maybe if he had an anti-tank rocket launcher on his shoulder then I might say the photo is perfect. =)

Edit: it's like taking fruit in a basket and taking a picture of it.. only his fruit is a bike rider, and the basket is the street.

"I mean.. what's the point of shooting a guy on a bike, rounding a corner in the street..."

Ahhh now, we're onto something...

To be more Socratic about this, what do you think the subject of the image is?

The bike rider isn't the Rock Star of that shot but the cool web of lines that Bresson saw and how he positioned himself (composed things) to bring them to light. The biker adds "the human element", perspective and helps underscore the configuration. In general terms, it's his vision or what he calls "coincidence of lines". That is what I see as the subject. Going by the blur he was probably shooting at 1/30 or 1/60 of a second, because the passage was possibly shaded or dark and I'll assume taken handheld. The need for stark detail was completely irrelevant to accomplish his goal. I'll also assume if was doing bug macros he would have approached things differently...god knows they can never be sharp enough...lolol.

It's simply they way he sees the world or a thing he finds interesting and while many people might pass by that scene and keep walking he shows us something somewhat unique in the view. I don't think it's at all abstract but if you want to go there it does have some cubist qualities like DuChamps, Woman Ascending Stairs, if you may. The biker almost lends a slight stroboscopic effect to the lines as he shoots around the curb. There are many details to the image that clobber viewers over the head while some see nothing at all. Those who see nothing just aren't looking. A good education teaches us to look deeper into things if it teaches us anything at all.

I won't say what the image is about but I will say it's not about a piece of fruit nor is it about the basket. Perhaps it's a bout lifes patterns...

eta: Regarding the shot I posted Unsharp Decisive Moment...

I did shoot it as a spoof, in one take (before I ran back inside to finish my coffee and conversation) to illustrate how easy it is to technically pull off a shot and that if I stayed they for longer I could have perfected every single detail, if the hard rain continued providing the heavy flooding near the storm drain. HCB showed me what to look for and one day I might find that clear glass puddle that passers by break and knock the shot out of the ballpark. With the equipment I have, the thousands of practice shots, autofocus, in-camera meters...chimping every shots it gets pretty easy. Usually my camera is sett close to where I want it and sometimes I need to make adjestments based on the first few shots BUT if the first one is the best moment...that's the shot you go with, regardless of the technicals.

As for the "One Way" sign, sometimes I can and do align those elements and sometimes they are coincidence. It's hard to explain but there is a sense for those things you have innately and can develop to some degree. HCB talks about that often as do other great Street Photographers. Some people have it, some don't. Ironically he himself seemed dismissive of it as something that's inborn or simply reacting and all the "art" cred that's attributed to him he was dismissive of, as well.

In this shot, Three Mice, I noticed every person coming through that tunnel peering out in order not to get slammed by a bus. I'd imagine the St. Lazare shot happened much the same way in that people may have found that little path leading them into a shallow part of the still water puddle (where they'd get their shoes least wet?), my folks systematically looked for traffic. Bresson may have seen one person break the still water...then another, a few moments later and then took a shot of the third. I lined up what I wanted in frame and waited for people to approach. There were better shots to be had but I had to go to the bathroom so badly, I quit. lolol

Message edited by author 2009-06-18 12:16:20.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

06/18/2009 01:01:19 PM · #284

Originally posted by dahkota:

Taste is a result of education and awareness of elite cultural values; therefore taste can be learned. Taste varies according to class, cultural background, and education

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Uh, no......you couldn't possibly be more wrong about that. BECAUSE of my background I know the exact opposite to be true in most cases.

You said: "Taste varies according to class, cultural background, and education."

I feel that's an incorrect statement. There are too many variables that go into the essence of taste.

I know plenty of "Nobodies" without money, lineage, or education who have impeccable taste.....it's just something they come by naturally.

Clothing is a stellar example......my daughter and I are very similar in style and taste to each other despite the 40 year age difference, and one thing we are 100% in agreement on is that Mommy has *NO* taste whatsoever!

ESPECIALLY in the cases of monied people who haven't had it for generations. Not that old money is less prone to ridiculous elitism, it's just a different kind of snobbery without justifiable cause.

I don't much like money and what it makes people into. It's disusting. And one of the first nasty attributes that seems to arise from newly acquired wealth is an elitist attitude.

Originally posted by dahkota:

Lets use a different example than cars - try wine. One can spend his entire life enjoying wine, not caring from where it came, what kind of soil in which it grows, or in what year it was harvested. It gives one a nice buzz, goes well with the meal and that is good enough and all one cares to know. On the other hand, one can learn about the different textures, flavors, notes, that comprise different wines, eventually being able to discern what vintage, from where one is drinking, become a real connoisseur, experiencing as many different wines as possible. And no, its not an either/or proposition; there is a continuum. But taste is developed through experience and experience is education.

BTW - a definition of elite: "The best or most skilled members of a group." While elite is often used to designate economic status, the word is not limited to designating the highest economic status.

I still disagree with you.....I think taste can be refined, but just like someone who has a "Tin Ear" and just cannot play music because of it, if you don't have a proclivity to be able to tell what's good and what's not, all the education, privilege, and opportunity is going to be wasted.

Just like your wine tasting analogy.....no matter how much you may want to be a connisseur, if you have bad taste buds, or seriously bad sinus problems, it ain't happenin'.

As to your definition, an elitist attitude is not necessarily a derivative of actual skill or refinement; in fact, some of the worst types of elitist snobs will be the most privileged with the best bloodlines......IMO further proof that an accident of genetics, marriage, or adoption does not comprise an actual elite status.

These definitions I found at dictionary.com aren't much similar to yours, yet are more consistent with my point.

noun
1. (often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. (used with a plural verb) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
3. a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.
4. a type, approximately 10-point in printing-type size, widely used in typewriters and having 12 characters to the inch.
â��adjective
5. representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.

Originally posted by dahkota:

I'll bet, before you joined DPC, your definition of what comprised a 'good' picture was different than your definition today. You yourself state that you have learned a lot here. Would you state your taste has changed due to your education?

Somewhat, absolutely, BUT.......I'd like to think that I had the ability, or the "Eye", as it were in the first place making me educable.

I would say that my level of taste has expanded greatly due to my exposure......and that also makes it empirical, which is tremendously more effective for my educational abilities. I suck in a classroom.....give me practical, hands-on education and I'm there. I'm much more of a learn as I do than as you say. Does that jibe with a reasonable educational process to you?

Originally posted by dahkota:

Someone else pointed out that DPC was a sub-culture. I would suspect, if it is a sub-culture, that it has its own values (note the same *types* of images repeatedly scoring well in challenges, for example) and those values express its tastes.

Yes, and the beauty of it is that there are various ways to explore and learn, whether it be Q&A in the forums, competing in any and all challenges that you can, only participating in what you're comfortable with, or engaging in any one of the highly intensified side challenges where in an almost active seminar style you work with others developing your skills, and share them, all the while pickup up new tips and techniques from the others.

I guess that's why I get sort of frustrated with people who talk about how this site is so limiting.......IMNSHO, it's only limited by what you DON'T want to participate in.....

I hope my ramblings weren't too out there......8>)

Message edited by author 2009-06-18 13:04:45.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

06/18/2009 01:47:47 PM · #285

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I guess that's why I get sort of frustrated with people who talk about how this site is so limiting.......IMNSHO, it's only limited by what you DON'T want to participate in.....

I hope my ramblings weren't too out there......8>)

The site is not limiting although it might be limited and that's why a lot of people do outgrown the site.

If it is limiting it is by those who allow it to define their tastes (opinions, ideas) and don't travel very far outside the site for information...or education, which is somewhat apparent at times.

Paris Hilton? What a terrible analogy. She certainly is a bore because she's uneducated and insensitive, as well. Why mention her?

A lot of your analogies are broad and not clearly on mark. When we speak of taste here on this site I believe we are talking about people from relatively similar cultural backgrounds and hopefully a certain level of basic education. There are plenty of people with cheap taste and when speaking of food, art, fashion etc. the conversation won't be fruitful if you're coming from different places.

Message edited by author 2009-06-18 15:12:17.

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

06/18/2009 02:27:13 PM · #286

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Actually Jeb, you are not reading this correctly. I NEVERsaid, "Taste varies according to class, cultural background, and education." The entire quote (as seen in my first post about the subject) was taken directly from Wikipedia. You should know me well enough to know, particularly with my leading statement to that quote, that I find Wikipedia to be about as useful as a comic strip with regard to it being a reference for anything.

You state I am wrong about taste not being related to money but then you expound on how you know that taste isn't related to money. Not sure of your point here?

Additionally, I did not state anything about value judgments with regard to taste - you did and have repeatedly. Even your comment about your wife is a value judgment on her taste in clothes. I specifically stated that tastes vary, not that one taste is better than the other. So I'm really rather confused on your entire point here.

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Yes, there are always exceptions to every rule. I can site a hundred of them. But again, exceptions prove the rule.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

As to your definition, an elitist attitude is not necessarily a derivative of actual skill or refinement; in fact, some of the worst types of elitist snobs will be the most privileged with the best bloodlines......IMO further proof that an accident of genetics, marriage, or adoption does not comprise an actual elite status.

I wasn't talking about elitist attitude. Never said anything of the sort. You did. That is where my mention of bias came in. The Wiki quote mentions elite. Not elitist. Not elitist attitude. You read that in there where it doesn't exist. What I quoted and what you read are obviously two different things.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

These definitions I found at dictionary.com aren't much similar to yours, yet are more consistent with my point.

noun
1. (often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. (used with a plural verb) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
3. a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.
4. a type, approximately 10-point in printing-type size, widely used in typewriters and having 12 characters to the inch.
â��adjective
5. representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.

I'm glad these definitions are more to yourpoint; they have no relation to mine, nor to Wikipedia's. Again, you are reading something in here that doesn't exist except in your mind. Stop for a minute, parse exactly what the quote states, and try again, without the bias. You may respond to my point, but you can't accuse me of saying something I did not because it is what you perceived it to say.

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Again, read what I said, not what you think I said. A direct quote: "But taste is developed through experience and experience is education." Where did I state that education is only achieved in a classroom? So what did I say? I'm curious to find out...

So, your taste has expanded due to your exposure. Would that be related to your experience? Would you say, maybe, that you have been educated?

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Personally, I don't find the site limiting, I find it amusing. That is why I am here - if life is not fun, what's the point? But that is a topic for another conversation...

tnun

Ricoh GR III

06/18/2009 03:48:41 PM · #287

Originally posted by posthumous:

I am pondering the first part, the distinction between craft and art, which I confess is somewhat confused in my mind, possibly due to an incomplete education wherein I rely overly on the etymology of words for their meaning. (For what it's worth, DrAchoo, effete is derived from "e" privative + foetus (womb), although I meant it in the first expanded sense quoted by BearM; petard/petar is derived from a word meaning to break wind).

In terms of this discussion, posthumous's distinction is elucidating and does, for me at any rate, encourage the important business of letting oneself into the photograph to see what might be seen, and allowing oneself the peculiarly intense delight of recognizing what one did not know one knew.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/18/2009 04:57:17 PM · #288

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Paris Hilton? What a terrible analogy. She certainly is a bore because she's uneducated and insensitive, as well. Why mention her?

Because she's somewhat typical of the black sheep of privileged and moneyed backgrounds that are all too prevalent. She's a perfect example of a case where breeding, education, opportunity, and money don't mean diddly-squat.

On the other hand, Elizabeth Luce, whom I went to school with years ago, was one of the most enchanting, elegant, and classy women I've ever met......a DuPont heiress.

And as I stated before, I've met plenty of people from regular backgrounds who were much more sophisticated and classy than so many of the spoiled rich brats I met over the years.

And it's BOOR.

Message edited by author 2009-06-18 16:59:42.

Iraklis

Nikon D90

06/18/2009 05:14:06 PM · #289

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You said: "Taste varies according to class, cultural background, and education."

I feel that's an incorrect statement. There are too many variables that go into the essence of taste.

I know plenty of "Nobodies" without money, lineage, or education who have impeccable taste.....it's just something they come by naturally.

Her quote states that taste varies, not that it's merit is based on class, cultural background, and education. Although I think depending on circumstance there sometimes is more merit dependent on the above,... or the latter two at any rate.

My father produces olive oil, and olives. That and being Greek :P, I am more exposed to olives and the different ways one can cure them to achieve a certain tastethan the average person. One may try an olive and not like it's taste because they found it too bitter. I may try that same olive and know these olives are supposed to be very bitter and they guy who cured them did a mighty fine job. I would be in a better position to appreciate that even if the very bitter kind weren't my choice of olives- which in reality they are ; )

I also had my share of wine and can't tell if my contribution to this thread is ridiculous or not hahaha

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

06/18/2009 05:20:11 PM · #290

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by pawdrix:
Paris Hilton? What a terrible analogy. She certainly is a bore because she's uneducated and insensitive, as well. Why mention her?

Because she's somewhat typical of the black sheep of privileged and moneyed backgrounds that are all too prevalent. She's a perfect example of a case where breeding, education, opportunity, and money don't mean diddly-squat.

On the other hand, Elizabeth Luce, whom I went to school with years ago, was one of the most enchanting, elegant, and classy women I've ever met......a DuPont heiress.

And as I stated before, I've met plenty of people from regular backgrounds who were much more sophisticated and classy than so many of the spoiled rich brats I met over the years.

And it's BOOR.

I still don't see a point. Are talking about money or education? I believe we were talking about education and I don't equate the two. I'm not sure anyone did and if so it's not relevant to the thread.

06/18/2009 05:28:00 PM · #291

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

so you learned that there may be all kinds of rich people.
And then you also know that some not reach people are "sophisticated and classy than so many of the spoiled rich brats". In other words there may be all kinds of not-rich people.

In nutshell, you think that there are all types of people.

Don't you think we all already know this.

06/18/2009 08:00:41 PM · #292

Originally posted by zxaar:

My point was fairly simple, right from the start.....someone stated, or quoted a quote, or heard a rumor, that "Taste varies according to class, cultural background, and education."

My point was exactly what you managed to glean.....that all kinds of people from all walks of life vary in their abilities to be educable to certain things.

Money, education, and bloodline don't have anything to do with the propensity to be educable in the fine arts, or whether you have any sense of aesthetics.

That was why I said that I think the statement above is erroneous. I don't give a hoot who stated it, I just don't agree with it, no more, no less....I don't have any need to assign wrongness, state someone is meaning something other than what they say.....I was just trying to offer my opinion. It's obvious that it got missed somewhere, somehow; sorry......proceed....

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/18/2009 08:38:21 PM · #293

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

My point was exactly what you managed to glean.....that all kinds of people from all walks of life vary in their abilities to be educable to certain things.

Till here i think nobody denying it. In fact this is what globally that statement says that 'taste varies'.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

My point was fairly simple, right from the start.....someone stated, or quoted a quote, or heard a rumor, that "Taste varies according to class, cultural background, and education."

.....

Money, education, and bloodline don't have anything to do with the propensity to be educable in the fine arts, or whether you have any sense of aesthetics.

First the statement that - "Taste varies according to class, cultural background, and education."
does not say anything about 'propensity to be educable'. It merely says that the way you enjoy or not enjoy anything can vary according to class , culture bacground and education.

Which is certainly very true.

Other have already argued in favour of it, so i do not want to repeat.
But just as an example, i being an indian living in japan, have found myself in situation where a joke that is funny to indian is utter rubbish to a japanese.
it does not mean that japanese do not have sense of humour. its that their taste varries and is different that of an indian.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

06/18/2009 08:42:07 PM · #294

a Ninja and a Hindu walk into a bar...

06/18/2009 08:42:20 PM · #295

nevermind.

ART, please continue...

Message edited by author 2009-06-18 20:44:20.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/18/2009 08:48:14 PM · #296

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

a Ninja and a Hindu walk into a bar...

Is there any award for utterly boring statement?? Just wondering.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

06/18/2009 08:49:58 PM · #297

Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
a Ninja and a Hindu walk into a bar...

Is there any award for utterly boring statement?? Just wondering.

Sorry, zxaar, I was just havin fun with ya. I guess you were right...

Originally posted by zxaar:

But just as an example, i being an indian living in japan, have found myself in situation where a joke that is funny to indian is utter rubbish to a japanese.
it does not mean that japanese do not have sense of humour. its that their taste varries and is different that of an indian.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

06/18/2009 08:58:13 PM · #298

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Sorry, zxaar, I was just havin fun with ya. I guess you were right...

i am playing along.

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Sorry, zxaar, I was just havin fun with ya. I guess you were right...
Originally posted by zxaar:
But just as an example, i being an indian living in japan, have found myself in situation where a joke that is funny to indian is utter rubbish to a japanese.
it does not mean that japanese do not have sense of humour. its that their taste varries and is different that of an indian.

You missed english classes in school it seems. I said indians find it funny. So it was not dull.

Try again.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

06/18/2009 09:01:04 PM · #299

Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Sorry, zxaar, I was just havin fun with ya. I guess you were right...

i am playing along.

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Sorry, zxaar, I was just havin fun with ya. I guess you were right...
Originally posted by zxaar:
But just as an example, i being an indian living in japan, have found myself in situation where a joke that is funny to indian is utter rubbish to a japanese.
it does not mean that japanese do not have sense of humour. its that their taste varries and is different that of an indian.

You missed english classes in school it seems. I said indians find it funny. So it was not dull.

Try again.

Ah, but see, many Americans would find Art's joke funny, where you did not. He was just, off-handedly, proving your point.