Does Photonet influence our photos ?

Paul, the examples you give are all, I'm sure you will agree, opinions and totally justified and

acceptable opinions. That does however not make them into qualified statements on the

artistic qualities of the photo. The whole question is whether we recognize that there is

something more out there then subjective opinions. I believe firmly that there is and that

museums are filled up with the results of the process. Art is something more than artistic

work appreciated by my neighbors - with all respect to my good neighbors.

I didn't have a time to find here the method of rating. How does it work? I don't know how to rate, but I'd like to. (I was busy in learning English.)

Kristina click "Photo.net FAQ" below (written in blue) and you will see the instructions. Good

luck with the English.

Anders, to be honest, I'm no longer sure what you're trying to say...

 

Could you please give me - and other readers of this forum - a simple, clear example of an objective statement regarding the artistic qualities of a photograph...?

 

Perhaps your understanding of the terms "objective" and "artistic qualities" is somewhat different to mine, so a clear example would be very helpful.

 

Thanks.

Paul as you would expect I have no such statement but I'm convinced that any subjective

appreciations is not a valid statement on art. Appreciation of photos as art demand

knowledge, competence, experiences that few of us have acquired. What most of us here on

PN use as thumb-rules when evaluating photos i indeed a question of whether it is agreeable

to look at. That is how we end up with photos of dogs, flowers and sunset as photos with

high ratings.

"Does photonet influence our photos to the better or to the worse?"

 

Dunno. I pay attention to some forum posters. They've taught me things I hadn't considered before.

OK, Anders, I think I see your point now...

 

So, what you really mean is that you'd like to receive the subjective opinions of people whose opinions you happen to respect, for whatever reason... Yes? That's a very different point indeed, to my mind.

 

I'd say that appreciation of "art" is simply a personal reaction to - and sometimes the interpretation of - "stuff". We may then choose to express our personal opinions regarding that stuff, if we wish.

 

So, to my mind, the real question is how do we deal with the opinions/statements/reactions of others, and what are we really seeking to gain from them, if anything...?

 

Before asking for an opinion on your photographs, perhaps you should ask yourself the following... Do you accept the opinions of certain people as more "valid", somehow...? Do you respect the opinions of people you don't know personally...? What value do you attach to certain people's words, and why...? What are your own personal criteria when evaluating someone's opinions/statements?

 

And - being as honest with yourself as you can - what are you really looking for...? Artistic evaluation? Well, I would that argue such an evaluation will always be inherently subjective. Technical tips? Sure, they can be objective, but very often aren't...

 

Or are you looking for something else? Appreciation, perhaps? The respect of your peers? Approval? Inspiration? Conversation? Attention? A mentor? Friendship? Customers? A job? A bloody good laugh? Anything you can get...? Nothing really, but hey, it kills some time reading people's words...? All are perfectly valid answers.

 

It seems to me, Anders, that by being a self-confessed "elitist" you are simply seeking the opinions - and almost certainly a degree of appreciation and respect - of those who you happen to respect yourself. No shame in that, whatsoever, of course. That's human nature, after all.

 

But I'm pretty sure you're not seeking objectivity... Well, not what I call "objectivity", anyway. Yes, it's perfectly possible to describe a photograph objectively, in factual terms, but it seems you didn't mean that...

 

In which case, you are, in fact, seeking subjective opinions.

 

Yes?

Paul you are totally right when it comes to what I'm looking for when it comes to critics of my own modest productions, but you are off the track when it comes to critics

of art. We have in fact two discussions here so it is not strange if you are getting confused.

 

The whole threat has been a question of what happens about our own production here on photonet and what is the role of ratings and comments. All very interesting

discussion in my eyes. However the last couple of days I saw discussions that were directed towards a more general question on objective/subjective criteria of art. I

jumped in because I'm convinced that the general message here on Photonet that all is art and that purely subjective appreciation of a photo are equally important, is

false. In my knowledge and experience ART is elitist and by definition we have very few examples here on Photonet, if any. Surely my photos cannot be considered in

the category. That does not mean that my photos cannot be very personal expressions, when I succeed, but I don't believe that it is art.

 

So back to the subjective critics. They are important because they tell us what is liked. When such critics come from someone I know and admire it means a lot to me. But

there is a art profession out there with more objective criteria . I know of course that such professionals also are marked by subjective appreciations and that professional

rarely agree between them selves but they are part of a system that produces messages on what, at least at a given moment of history, is art and what not (the border

line is anything but sharp, of course). You can have thousands of artist that produced like Joan Miro but a real Miro can be identified and separated from the many

imitations. You can have millions of photos out there, but only a fraction get anywhere near ART. To identify what is ART and separate bad, good photos from photos that

are ART, demand more than most of us (any of us ?) are able to do despite our subjective appreciations. I know that here are differences between many of us on the

existence of "democratic art" and "elitist art", but as you can understand I belong to last category. That's why I spend so much time in museums and reading ART books.

 

Back to the quality and critics of photos here on Photonet. Ratings tells what, at a "snapview", is liked but I think it is not a candidate for a serious and helpful critique of

our work. Comments and written critiques can be extremely helpful especially when they come from people that you admire from the quality of their passed critics or

from the quality of their photos. Where I think Photonet can help in order to improve the quality of critiques would be to improve the guidelines on quality criteria so

that written comments become somewhat more based on an analysis of certain elements and dimensions of a photo (composition, decisive moments, novelty, aesthetics,

technical quality...).

 

I hope that it now is clearer what I wanted to express earlier in the threat.

Anders, I'm not confused at all.

 

I was, in fact, trying very hard to be patient and polite with your lack of analytical reasoning, in the hope that you would think about your own words and see that you are merely expressing your own personal opinions here. And that others are perfectly free to disagree.

 

Your apparent failure to understand and accept certain very simple concepts ("objectivity", "opinion") is why you are confusing yourself with terminology that you clearly haven't defined in your own mind, let alone to myself or others on this forum.

 

"To identify what is ART and separate bad, good photos from photos that are ART, demand more than most of us (any of us ?) are able to do despite our subjective appreciations."

 

If I (truthfully...) declare that I consider a photograph (or anything else...) to be "a work of art", then it is. To me. That is a fact. I can assure you that neither you or any author of any "art" book will ever be able to convince me otherwise. (I can. You can't.) And, well, if anyone were foolish enough to even try, I'd simply laugh at them, and dismiss them as an idiot.

 

Other people are free to tell me if they consider the same work to be "art", based on their own subjective opinions, and interpretations of the word "art". Then, if someone else happens to declare something to be "art", I may or may not listen to what they have to say, depending on countless factors... In general, unless I know - or feel it would be interesting to get to know - the person personally, I simply don't bother.

 

As you say, your own interest is in becoming an art "elitist". That's fine. You may well find you appreciate some things in a different way by doing so, and you may feel you gain some form of insight and enjoyment from that.

 

Alternatively, you may (unknowingly) find yourself being effectively brainwashed by the pleasantly-packaged opinions of others, and then oh-so-generously offering your words of artistic "wisdom" to anyone that will listen...

 

I won't.

Calm, calm Paul, just accept that we have different opinion on this - if you still listen !!

 

You are free to believe in what ever you find pleasure in - me too. The reason we communicate here might be that we are

interested in what others write about a subject and not only on imposing our own beliefs.

 

I believe that art is elitist and you believe that it is democratic. I think it is clear for all and without any confusion, apart from

your misreading of my own interest. I'm not striving "to become an art "elitist"". I have an elitist understanding of what is art.

My own photos and my own artistic expression would never become art according to such an understanding.

I'm not sure what point gets made when declaring that anything one says is art is art. I might

declare the table in front of me to be a door and not allow anything you say to convince me

otherwise. Where does that get me?

Fred, the answer is: Nowhere ! and that seems to be the point people that express

themselves so categorical might like to make. Art, for them means nothing, so it is anything

!! I see it like that at least.

I haven't really thought about how much I am influenced by PN. I have learned from PN, but I haven't considered if I am subconsciously influenced by the site's photos. I do feel like I am more daring with some of my photos. Perhaps that's why.

I would hope that it does... The entire idea of sharing photos is to share ideas. Photo.net provides an inspirational outlet and we are all learning from each other whether we are aware of it or not.