[]Photographer []Artist []Cameraman (Check only one)

Thomas, I think it would matter to some pros. If it is a matter of business and income, at least.

"So... not interested in what anyone else says about art, huh? Then why hang out here and talk with others about art?"

 

This is the Philosophy of Photography forum. My question would be why anybody else besides me hangs here.

"I can't find what you are quoting, Thomas... Is it from this thread?"

 

""What are the odds a professional critic would criticize my photographs? The answer I come up with is: none. Therefore, neither Art or criticism of Art it is of any interest to me insofar as my photography is concerned.""

 

Don E wrote the above.

 

"Aren't you a critic, yourself? Expressing your academically inflicted opinions about art?... t"

 

Trying to work with you, that's a yes and a no as my comments represent my bias' (value system, ethics and morality) and need to be taken as such; biased commentary which is as valid and invalid as the next person's critique. Just because I make comment, doesn't make my comments anymore or any less valid then the next person's as I'll be happy to be the first to condemn the validity of my own critique process; self-effacing.

 

I live in an extremely pseudo, materialistic society and my comments reflect the offense I have (bias) of how soullessly and materialistically I see the artistic process, but that's openly, my bias; view. I live in a society that hasn't the ability to see past their egocentric needs; that's my bias and yes, this bias infects my critique of the art making process and the art establishment that I see; how ever small the bottle is which I live in.

 

The point I'm trying to share in my above, yes I agree with you as to your view of my critique of the art establishment. I'm not in conflict with the critique process so much as I'm in conflict with the dishonesty (denial) of the critics and from whence their decisions truly come from; subjectivity.

 

Again, I'm trying to work with you in my above, not against you.

One way I've found to distinguish between critics and philosophers is that critics where blinders (as do some authors of a so-called philosophy of photography. They have their notions about photography and will exclude (negatively critique or outright dismiss) certain kinds of photography -- not to mention the kinds of photography they are unaware of. A philosopher has to consider photography period. The philosopher asks banal questions such as 'What is the photograph?" But this is very boring for egoists and photographers anxious to share their "personal" philosophy and their art.

<b>TG</b>

<i> One is always welcome to critique another's artistic effort but the invalidity of the

critique is based upon the understanding that it's of no merit due to the fact that it's based

upon the reviewer's "opinion" or an artist's "opinion."</i><p>

 

Shorter is better. Try, "Criticism is worthless opinion" (in your opinion)<p>

 

<i>Example; someone can say what they will about one's efforts but the artist is a fool if

they stop to read what other's have to say about what they're creating </i><p>

 

Try, "Fools pay attention to others' impressions." <p>

 

<i>How often have they been wrong? In this case, as examples, think Impressionists,

Dadaists, Stieglitz, Fauves, Cubists, [...]</i><p>

 

That's the old "They laughed at (insert appeal to authority here)".

<B>TG</B> <I> I'm not in conflict with the critique process so much as I'm in conflict with

the dishonesty (denial) of the critics and from whence their decisions truly come from;

subjectivity.</I><P>

So your subjectivity is good while others' is not. <p>

 

Are you dizzy?<p>

<b>August</b><i> Pico was ambiguous in his OP: "But now he's a photography critic and

teaches the subject." What's "the subject": photography or photography criticism? </i><p>

The ambiguity was not intentional. The person in question teaches photography

appreciation, shows his/her photography and will likely have a show soon enough. However,

artists do all kinds of things as exercises and we may over-value what a show really means. It

might simply be a creative social opportunity in order to find friendly peers, critics,

chats.<p>

"Shorter is better."

 

For you it is, for me it isn't.

 

Example; someone can say what they will about one's efforts but the artist is a fool if they stop to read what other's have to say about what they're creating

 

"Try, "Fools pay attention to others' impressions.""

 

No, try it just the way I wrote it, without your childish compulsive editing.

 

How often have they been wrong? In this case, as examples, think Impressionists, Dadaists, Stieglitz, Fauves, Cubists, [...]

 

"That's the old "They laughed at (insert appeal to authority here)"."

 

I like it just the way it was written, without your immature and compulsive need to edit other's efforts.

 

"So your subjectivity is good while others' is not."

 

"Are you dizzy?"

 

No, I'm not dizzy just because you don't have the ability to grasp the context of what I write.

 

One comes quickly to realize that mostly, the best you got, is nothing. If it helps, this is the last time I'll respond to your intentionally disruptive trolls. I'll respond to serious comments (maybe) but will ignore personalized thread disruptive trolls of no thought (import) like your above.

Clear thinking should lead to clear writing. You had an opportunity to respond in plain English, and chose instead to call names.

 

More words does not equal more information.

<b>TG</B> <I>How could one feel good about the process if they're worried about critics? </I><P>

Perhaps much of making 'art' is not just fun, joy and giggles. Sometimes a person might have to make something that disturbs him in order to make his point through critics.<p>

And maybe, just maybe it's like making love - it ain't all about the maker.

" "The person who did that isn't an artist; he is just a good cameraman."

 

Obviously my usual detachment came apart when I felt this in-person.

 

So... I'm a cameraman. Beats being an artist.

 

N'est pas?

 

Thoughts."

 

 

Not to wax too too philosophical here, but as I look to the Subject:

 

[]Photographer []Artist []Cameraman (Check only one)

 

Are you checking Cameraman? Or was your response: "So... I'm a cameraman" Socratic Irony?

 

I should re-read the discussion, but did anyone note the Photographer choice? Cameraman and Artist seem to have got some attention.

<i>"So... I'm a cameraman" Socratic Irony? </i><p>

Yep. I'm just a camera with a guy stuck on the back. Nothing more and possibly something less!

The complete version is: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, write."

 

I have the upmost repect for the few great teachers and writers I have the pleasure of encountering. But I love to use the above to slam the numerous miserable teachers and writers who should really be doing something else. But what else can they do?

<p>I am a photographer and an artist. I went to school and studied graphic design &

illustration. I do photography for myself, not for anyone else. If other people like my

photos, that's great. If not, well too bad for them. In my free time I draw, and in the past

I've done some book covers and logos for companies.</p>

 

<p>In art school I had some real jerk teachers, honestly. If you didn't do things exactly as

they said, or used a technique they didn't like, they wouldn't give you a second look. If you

sucked up to them or even worse copied them, they loved you to death. When I saw some

of their portfolios I really wasn't impressed (not ALL my teachers were like that- a lot were

really cool.)</p>

 

<p>As for photographers critiquing my work, I won't take anyone seriously until I've seen

some of their work. Any doofus can say whatever they want, but I've got to have proof that

they know what they're doing & talking about or understand me, otherwise what they say

just goes in one ear and out the other. For example being a camera collector and being a

photographer can be totally different things.</p>