| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2015 01:26:07 PM · #51 |
| I'm more put off by the ridiculous fallout from all of this than any provocative statement that the OP made in his excitement for the work of another photographer. Lighten up. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 01:34:07 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by bvy:
I'm more put off by the ridiculous fallout from all of this than any provocative statement that the OP made in his excitement for the work of another photographer. Lighten up. |
Yes, It seems a bit disingenuous, to cry foul of the OP, when the same people bring their antisocial disorder to these website forums, time after time bullying, shouting down- and when called on it, the explanations all slyly backtrack just enough to avoid censure. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 01:45:54 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by bvy:
I'm more put off by the ridiculous fallout from all of this than any provocative statement that the OP made in his excitement for the work of another photographer. Lighten up. |
Yes, It seems a bit disingenuous, to cry foul of the OP, when the same people bring their antisocial disorder to these website forums, time after time bullying, shouting down- and when called on it, the explanations all slyly backtrack just enough to avoid censure. |
yes. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 01:50:16 PM · #54 |
| Perhaps, if from now on people can comment on the referenced photographs instead of each other, this thread can remain open. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 01:53:03 PM · #55 |
The OP used what was likely considered a bit of hyperbole. This is what sucks about online communication; people take simple statements as far in their favored direction as they can. Obviously you can't hear his voice or see his expression when speaking - so the worst is often assumed. Some pretty sensitive types around here. It wasn't as if it was a personal attack.
THen again, he did say "YOU are not a photographer!!!!! .... " on a photography web site . That's chum in the water around here I suppose.
ETA: oops, he already said that ..
Originally posted by ubique:
Yep, "you aren't a photographer" was just a bit of intentional hyperbole. |
Originally posted by Mike:
Fuck the guy that makes that statement. its pretentious, pompous and ignorant of others thoughts and appreciations.
|
Message edited by author 2015-08-12 14:22:30. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 01:56:34 PM · #56 |
Saying something akin to... if you can't be thrilled and inspired by the Red Square painting by Kazimir Malevich, you aren't a painter or less of an artist. Don't expect not to touch a nerve. Perhaps that was the intention? I find the thread interesting.
Has anyone here watched "Art School Confidential". It's an interesting film. I won't give anything away but might be worth the time.
There's a push and pull. Painter, Photographer, .... artist. The more one gets in evolved and introduced to all varieties of work. You get a sense of what artists or people in the industry like vs what the regular public likes. The two don't generally overlap. Marketing yourself more as a character than let your work do the talking is hip. The plain can get boring, so you push. Wouldn't be fair to belittle the photog who only shoots stock on white all day. Isn't less of a photog. Sometimes I find myself starting to like a piece of art just because the art community is raving about it and try to see what they see, it's not clear to me, but hey there's always something new to learn. Then comes the moment where if I see myself pushing too hard, I step back. Just say, ok, it's not me, but I can try appreciate it however pompous it might be. It hurts sometimes and leaves the mind bewildered. Getting out of one's comfort zone is good but where's that line where you do want to stay true to yourself? I think the answers is to continue pushing out work. Just doing the work. Sooner or later something will settle and it will stick! All of us will never agree on how good(or bad) every piece of art or artist is.
ETA: Pertaining to the Red Square. As a piece, I don't understand the allure. Knowing some of the history of art in that era and what it represents makes me appreciate it in a way, but just as a painting, not really. Also, the whole thing on provenance, it's annoying. Another good watch is "Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?". The art world can be snobbish.
Message edited by author 2015-08-12 14:02:28. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 01:57:52 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Perhaps, if from now on people can comment on the referenced photographs instead of each other, this thread can remain open. |
close it, there can be no discussion, only blind agreement to ubique's view.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2015 02:20:07 PM · #58 |
I went to the European house of photography in Paris today, it was mainly to see the work of Jacques Henri Lartigue, he didn't crop his shots and what you see is what he got when he pressed the button, I'm not ashamed to say that I came away feeling like a real amateur. I guess that his work wouldn't do well in the score department here, he'd be in the bottom ten most challenges, to me that doesn't take away from the fact that he was a master photographer. I see no merit in the work of some of the most popular photographers here but that doesn't mean that they don't have their place, this is Internet after all.
Message edited by author 2015-08-12 14:21:03. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 03:12:58 PM · #59 |
| What is the difference between what ubique asserted and the complaint and wonder about the low scores given to dpc challenge winners? except for his hyperbole the tenor is the same. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 03:22:28 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by tnun:
What is the difference between what ubique asserted and the complaint and wonder about the low scores given to dpc challenge winners? except for his hyperbole the tenor is the same. |
one is fact and the other is speculation. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 03:51:21 PM · #61 |
I can't complain about passionate, emotional responses to an OP statement I made that was deliberately intended to be provocative, even if I hadn't thought that anybody could be so insecure as to take it literally.
I was trying to say only this: Warren Harold loves photographs, and I think most committed hobbyist photographers don't; they love photography. And that's a shame, because photography is about photographs, and about nothing else.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2015 03:53:56 PM · #62 |
Getting back to the original linked images: I did look at them. Not for long, they did not appeal to me.
I have been trying to figure out why they didn't appeal to me. I think the concept of getting to know someone, and yourself, by looking at their pictures is something that for me doesn't work. The idea of people documenting their lives, on the net, with their pictures is something that doesn't appeal to me. Two things don't appeal to me in that:
(1) documenting - I tend to prefer abstraction maybe even fantasy, because, at least to my thinking, what is documenting, what is real anyway? Any picture, no matter how documentary and pure and uncropped, is still a moment sliced out of time and space; it is not real, it is what the photographer wants it to be. I prefer to aim at getting at the essence of what makes something or someone what they are, rather than documenting.
(2) their lives - I prefer to see what people see, not who they are. I think I get to know them better by looking at the world around them the way they look at it, rather than looking at them in a cutout of their life. I am not interested in general in how people live but in what they see, how they see it, how they interpret it.
Photographers that inspire at this time are Yoel Tordjman and Joni Niemelä. Yes, both are at least somewhat similar to my own approach to life and art and photography, but why not? Ubique's likes are similar to his own style. We both are photographers. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 05:09:30 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Mike:
the fact that Robert is defending such incendiary statements is even more amazing to me.
Jesus Christ, have some respect for the opinions of others, God forbid they don't like the same things as you. |
I understand where Ubique's coming from, I don't think his hyperbolic original post was "incendiary", and I'm not trying to defend him, but rather to shed some light on what he's trying to communicate (or at least my take-away from it, I can't really speak for him). In other words, I'm involved in some sort of discussion of the work itself. Are you? You seem to be attacking the poster, not the substance of what he posted.
Personally, I'm nowhere NEAR as moved by Warren Harold's work as Ubique is. So be it. We're ALL entitled to our points of view, after all. Ubique thinks so, Posthumous thinks so, lots of people in this thread think so. I don't see any of them slavishly agreeing with Ubique's point of view, and I don't see UBIQUE bringing anyone to task for not doing so. So whatever problems this thread may have dredged up, they aren't coming from him.
Capisce? |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 05:15:07 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Getting back to the original linked images: I did look at them. Not for long, they did not appeal to me.
I have been trying to figure out why they didn't appeal to me. I think the concept of getting to know someone, and yourself, by looking at their pictures is something that for me doesn't work. The idea of people documenting their lives, on the net, with their pictures is something that doesn't appeal to me. Two things don't appeal to me in that:
(1) documenting - I tend to prefer abstraction maybe even fantasy, because, at least to my thinking, what is documenting, what is real anyway? Any picture, no matter how documentary and pure and uncropped, is still a moment sliced out of time and space; it is not real, it is what the photographer wants it to be. I prefer to aim at getting at the essence of what makes something or someone what they are, rather than documenting.
(2) their lives - I prefer to see what people see, not who they are. I think I get to know them better by looking at the world around them the way they look at it, rather than looking at them in a cutout of their life. I am not interested in general in how people live but in what they see, how they see it, how they interpret it.
Photographers that inspire at this time are Yoel Tordjman and Joni Niemelä. Yes, both are at least somewhat similar to my own approach to life and art and photography, but why not? Ubique's likes are similar to his own style. We both are photographers. |
I love Joni's work. That's great stuff. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 05:44:39 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Cory:
Honestly, I never know if you guys just enjoy seeing if you can convince others that there is something really deep in stuff that is shallow, or if I'm just unable to see what you see. |
You're painting in broad strokes. Do you include that time when I tried to convince you that there was something beautiful to your chase of the moon? Do you include the time when I started a thread for jmritz's 1,000 photos? Are you referring to all posthumous ribbons? You've created quite a comfortable position for yourself by being vague... gives you good leverage and room for maneuver... |
To some degree, at least on my chase of the moon, you saw more than I intended. Whether that's real or not? Hell who knows. For me, it's not, I was just taking some photos of town that all included the moon as it rose and the day faded.
I think 1000 entries is an accomplishment, but do not see that it makes something more or less art than it was at 10 or 10,000.
I have a sort of fascination with the PH ribbons, I honestly think mostly they're shit, with the occasional gem among them, but keep trying to figure out what it is you see. I genuinely DO wonder if you're just taking the piss, or if you really find them as moving as you claim.
Again, I don't know that I'm not just somehow crippled, but it all genuinely seems fishy to me. Not even intended to be inflammatory, just genuinely how I feel.
Frankly, the works that I find most art-like are the photos that tell an entire story in one frame, or spread a story across 20 frames. Both have a deeper meaning that I can appreciate - but so often it seems that you seek ambiguity over substance, and that simply doesn't work for me. |
You don't value the lonely impulse of delight that led you to chase the moon. I do.
I'll try to add some explanations to my posthumous ribbons. I'm not putting you on. And yes, I do value ambiguity. But when going through my own photos I reject hundreds of blurry messes to pick out the rare photos that work. There is no one explanation for what makes a good photograph. Each good photograph has its own explanation. And if I heard a remotely convincing explanation of why a DPC ribbon winner was good, I could easily change my mind about it.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2015 06:22:23 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
And if I heard a remotely convincing explanation of why a DPC ribbon winner was good, I could easily change my mind about it. |
What do you mean "good"? |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 06:27:12 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
And if I heard a remotely convincing explanation of why a DPC ribbon winner was good, I could easily change my mind about it. |
This picture is "good" because it's technically effective in telling its story, and the story is compelling. How amazing it is, that thanks to Jake's perseverance we get to spy on such an intimate and fleeting moment in a bird-family's life, as the parent uses a berry to lure a fledgling out for its first flight. Is it "art"? Of course not. Is it a good photograph? Hell yes!
 |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 06:44:09 PM · #68 |
Lartigue is awesome. The joy of photography seeped out of that guy's pores.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2015 07:46:26 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by posthumous:
And if I heard a remotely convincing explanation of why a DPC ribbon winner was good, I could easily change my mind about it. |
What do you mean "good"? |
lots of images are good, you just need a masters in writing in order to convey why to certain people. i'm beginning to think they like words more than pictures.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2015 08:38:10 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by posthumous:
And if I heard a remotely convincing explanation of why a DPC ribbon winner was good, I could easily change my mind about it. |
What do you mean "good"? |
lots of images are good, you just need a masters in writing in order to convey why to certain people. i'm beginning to think they like words more than pictures. |
A picture's worth a thousand words. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 09:17:47 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by jomari:
A picture's worth a thousand words. |
That might make an interesting side challenge, though I fear the only way we'd get a thousand words about one picture would be for ten DPCers to write a hundred words each ... :-( |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 06:47:45 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by posthumous:
And if I heard a remotely convincing explanation of why a DPC ribbon winner was good, I could easily change my mind about it. |
This picture is "good" because it's technically effective in telling its story, and the story is compelling. How amazing it is, that thanks to Jake's perseverance we get to spy on such an intimate and fleeting moment in a bird-family's life, as the parent uses a berry to lure a fledgling out for its first flight. Is it "art"? Of course not. Is it a good photograph? Hell yes!
|
Thanks, Bear. I think. ;) |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 08:54:53 AM · #73 |
AAA for the love of photography,
I am disappointed by this thread,
Then as I read on the thread. So what if that in other's eyes when in reality, I didn't get that image myself really, did I care for it, nor did I get its meaning will "It will not make me a photographer or that I am one" really?? What does that have to do with photography and for what a person takes, I just don't get it.
Oh, I don't make a living from photos and don't plan on it, but I have starting making some petty cash from it and it just recently, which by the way brought my new manfroto tripod and should have that within the next week or so. It also paid for my macro ring lights as well :-))
I LOVE photography, everyone has "their own tastes" from all over the world it is why I loved this site in the first place ..
this thread makes me feel I am in high school again.
I want to know why photographs tick with some others to why others don't give a crap about it and what was it that the person didn't care for it. There are a lot of images that were posted that I feel that way, tick with some and others there is no way it won't. I wanted to hear others thoughts and opinions and see explanations of why this or that.
(By the way, the one below by Jake, is one of my favs by far yet, but I was away at the time for voting. well done)
Overall, from this thread, I understood as: Oh yea, I am not a photographer. That is very discouraging for the newbies who may inspire to be one and have never heard of the dude. I respected the original OP statement and I was excited to see through others what this was all about.
Alas, I don't see it that way.
I am an enthusiast hobbyist who just loves photography and I have that burning desire to keep learning. Despite of what others say or do.
Message edited by author 2015-08-13 09:09:49. |
|
|
|
08/13/2015 09:12:39 AM · #74 |
thats what he's saying, that you love photography, you dont love photographs however photography is about photographs not photography.
i'm starting to think they are screwing with us.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2015 12:24:29 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by jgirl57:
AAA for the love of photography,
I am disappointed by this thread,
Then as I read on the thread. So what if that in other's eyes when in reality, I didn't get that image myself really, did I care for it, nor did I get its meaning will "It will not make me a photographer or that I am one" really?? What does that have to do with photography and for what a person takes, I just don't get it.
Oh, I don't make a living from photos and don't plan on it, but I have starting making some petty cash from it and it just recently, which by the way brought my new manfroto tripod and should have that within the next week or so. It also paid for my macro ring lights as well :-))
I LOVE photography, everyone has "their own tastes" from all over the world it is why I loved this site in the first place ..
this thread makes me feel I am in high school again.
I want to know why photographs tick with some others to why others don't give a crap about it and what was it that the person didn't care for it. There are a lot of images that were posted that I feel that way, tick with some and others there is no way it won't. I wanted to hear others thoughts and opinions and see explanations of why this or that.
(By the way, the one below by Jake, is one of my favs by far yet, but I was away at the time for voting. well done)
Overall, from this thread, I understood as: Oh yea, I am not a photographer. That is very discouraging for the newbies who may inspire to be one and have never heard of the dude. I respected the original OP statement and I was excited to see through others what this was all about.
Alas, I don't see it that way.
I am an enthusiast hobbyist who just loves photography and I have that burning desire to keep learning. Despite of what others say or do. |
Dear Julie,
When someone tells you what photographs you should like, and what you should not like, you should consider them full of crap and ignore them. At the top of the list of such people to be ignored I put me, because in the case of this thread I actually was at the top of the pile of arrogant a-holes.
The "not a photographer" crack was ill-chosen because the author (me again, alas) did not think it would be taken to heart; taken literally. It was intended to be like saying, "If you don't love hotdogs you don't love the USA", which if taken literally would be ridiculous, but nonetheless does make a superficially valid rhetorical point.
If you see me post again, don't take the slightest notice. Same goes for several of the posters who most strenuously opposed my rhetoric, because they're just as full of crap as I am. Little bit fuller, actually, but let's keep that between us?
Cheers,
Paul
|
|
