Photo Club Marginalization...

This is not a complaing (errr, for a change), but more of an

observation. Seems to me that Photo.net has become a massive "Photo

Club" with the marginalization of creative shots that result. If

shots fit into the "Calendar Shot" category, they tend to be well

rated, but if not, they tend to get panned (I won't even talk about

the 1 in 50 raters who actually comment, they are so few and far

between it is comical).

 

It really IS a pity that photo clubs like photo.net attract the

lowest common denominator in in creativity, but those who can tend

to re-create shots they've seen elsewhere with fairly good accuracy

(the craftsmen as opposed to the artists). The result is that the

highly rated shots get marginalized and rather predictable. My shots

that have been rated well in originality (I don't bitch about

aesthetic ratings, hate what I do if you must aesthetically, but I

defy the lowballers to try and get the same shot)...in any case,

cute kittens, beach debris lit from 3 axis...feeding

frogs...standard calendar fare. They've gotten respectable ratings.

Experimental nudes with massive negative space (yes, it is symbolic,

and different in each shot) have gotten hammered by the "boobie

crowd" and the "religious nuts" crowd, with very little input from

the "fine arts crowd" which seems nonexistant (and that makes sense,

as this "crowd" tends to shun the entire "photo club crowd"). I

wonder if <a

href="http://www.fraenkelgallery.com/exhibitions/e_goldin.html">Nan

Goldin's</a> work would survive if it was posten anonymously here?

Or <a href="http://www.leni-riefenstahl.de/eng/photo.html">Leni

Riefenstahl</a>? Or how about <a

href="http://www.patriagrande.net/mexico/tina.modotti/fotos.htm">Tina

Modotti</a>? Or some things by <a href="http://www.edward-

weston.com/edward_weston_nudes.htm>Edward Weston</a> like <a

href="http://www.edward-

weston.com/images/Edward_Weston_Nude/Nude_New%

20Mexico_1937_large.jpg">this</a> or <a href="http://www.edward-

weston.com/images/Edward_Weston_Nude/Nude_1924_Tina_on_the_Asotea_lar

ge.jpg">this</a>, or (a natural study) <a href="http://www.edward-

weston.com/images/Edward_Weston_Natural/Pelican%20on%20Sand,%201942%

20PL42-BI-1.jpg">this</a>?

 

Would their work have survived the photo club marginalization?

This is only an issue because my membership is about to lapse, and

I'm probably not going to renew for several reasons, among the

others being that after years and years photo.net admins are still

favoring U.S. based photogs in payment policy (and I'm not going

through the week or two of hell to get my non-US credit card to play

nice with Paypal, when Paypal only changes the rules every few

months so the card won't work). Odd that you can pay for space

upgrades with an international bank draft, but not memberships.

 

The other thing is the attitude of the management toward dissent.

Its often snippant and a bit flippy. As such, I'm not surprised that

many of the people that are attracted to this site are of a similar

ilk.

 

Photo club marginalization, fairly low levels of customer service,

and semi-abusive (at times, I've seen incredible posts from the same

people who are nasty as hell to customers at times) management. Boy,

THAT makes me want to spend a week or two in order to find a way to

renew my membership.

 

Damn, and I TRIED not to complain, and failed (well, at least the

thought was there). Anyway, just some observations...call me crazy

if you must, just don't call me Shirley ;-) :-).

A few threads from the past couple of days:<P>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CHvp">No calendar shots here</a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CInK">here</a>, or

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CIpJ"> here</a>. No pissing and moaning about ratings, either.

Mike, I agree (and in another post, I've said that I've learned an INCREDIBLE amount from looking at other people's work here).

 

I piss and moan about ratings because comments are so few and far between. AND, if you'll notice the original post, my comments were less about that than what is viewed here as a good photo, in general...I dunno, how do you think Goldin, Riefenstahl, Modoti, or Weston might have fared (okay, so Weston would fare well anywhere, so that's a freebie, he he).

Mike, damn...I think I have my brain askew today and I R slow. I just realized that all the links you posted are to the forums, and yeah...I agree, the non-critique forums have some incredible stuff.

Photo.net is the sum total of its membership.

 

If Nan Goldin's work would get 2/2 ratings, it reflects on the membership. If people like calendar shots of cats, it's a reflection of the tastes of the membership. They like cats, they don't like Nan Goldin.

 

Photo.net is indeed a massive "Photo Club" - what else would it be? It's a populist forum. It's like Community Cable Television. There are gems and there is drek, both in the gallery and in the forums, because they are unrestricted public access media.

 

The static content articles are, I hope, valuable, authoritative and informative.

 

Subscription difficulties for those outside the US are indeed a problem. However I can't quite figure out why so many US based users spend so much time here and yet still don't consider photo.net to be worth $0.07 (thats 7 cents) per day. If it's not worth that, why are they wasting their time here?

 

As for the management being "snippy", my opinion is that they show great restraint and patience. You clearly were not around when Philip ran photo.net...

"how do you think Goldin, Riefenstahl, Modoti, or Weston might have fared"

 

This has gotta be a first, Riefenstahl included in the Family of Nan.......

Lol, Doris...yeah, I tend to do more than mix my photographic metaphors, I like to put 'em in a blender on frappe :-D...I happen to love both of their work (err, and have yet to sponteneously combust...knock on wood, he he)...

Bob, actually...you are right in some ways about management being restrained, but as a fellow business owner, some of the responses to some people were...err...a tad short fused, which is bad bidness globally (errr, my wife quit letting ME interact with customers YEARS ago, I'm danged nasty when riled...got tired of ripping the duct tape out of my beard). Yeah, I really AM surprised at how many people won't pony up the p.net membership, but maybe the low level of fellow critique forumites may be some of it. Errr, and as I've started perusing the other forums for stuff, DANG there is some SCARY creative stuff in there (stuff I might "rate" in the negative range on aesthetics and near 100 on a scale of 1-7 on creativity, he he)...

 

I dunno, I suppose I'm still looking for a site where people really ARE more interested in creative photography than in ego stroking...keep deleting my portfolio here, then putting up new stuff...and am always surprised at what people like and don't like.

 

Oh yeah, and your comments tend to be insanely reasonable with the claws well sheathed :-)...

The problem with <em> a site where people really ARE more interested in creative photography than in ego stroking</em> is that it will be small, and therefore probably not self sustaining and that if it did happen to work, as it got more popular it would become diluted and less tightly focuses and so become photo.net. Actually I said many years ago that everything eventually ends up as USENET and I still think that tends to be true.

<p>

You could, with careful moderation and restrictions on access, have a site which was <em> a site where people really ARE more interested in creative photography than in ego stroking</em>, but it would have to be small and non-commercial. Photo.net is neither. It's something else. It's Popular Photography, not Lenswork. That's not necessarily bad, just different.

<p>

Those truely interested in art and creativity and doing experimental work will always, almost by definition, be a small minority of the whole of photography. Photo.net is a reflection of the whole. I think there's room for subgroups within photo.net. For example the "Philosophy of Photography" forum which we added last year caters for a minority interest and does contain some good discussions (along with some not-do-good).

<p>The problem with Avant Garde photography is that it's Avant Garde. If the majority of people liked it and "got it" it wouldn't be Avant Garde, it would be mainstream.

" It's Popular Photography, not Lenswork. That's not necessarily bad, just different."

 

Errr, yeah...brilliant. You are VERY right. I think you have hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head. And you're right, not bad, just different.

 

I'm gonna have to spend more time perusing the Philosophy of Photography forum, been a while since I've done that...that may placate the wild hairs that occasionally sprout in unwanted places :-)...