Do photo.net users have a very conservative attitude towards art?

<p>At the end of the day, this is all a semantic debate. Nobody can give criteria that a style of photography is better than others. But certainly, like it or not, everything around us is subject to the rule of supply and demand. Although there are certain rules that create certain psychological effects. Relation between lines, spots and surfaces in a frame whether they are straight, oblique or curved, their location and relation to each other may give you a sense of stability calmnes or excitement unpredictability,or unstability and so on and so forth. But even a very effective photo in any sense, if taken over and over and over for millions of times, it would lose its popularity and value. It would just be a copy paste of someone else work. It may look beautiful to someone who has not seen many photos. But those who have seen a bit more have a right to say that this photo is not original or not as good as a photo which is strong AND original.</p>

<p>Bill yes, I've got a kind disposition ;-)))</p>

<p>When I studied photography some of my fellow students had already a degree in graphic design and it has to be said on some levels they had a definite and considerable headstart. But more than any formal training it has a lot to do with personal interest as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't enter "Photo contests" either. The thought of some self-righteous twenty-five year old kid telling me what's what is just, well, let's just say........</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>that seems a bit strong. I've long since learned that valuable insights can come from all kinds of directions and often it does. Let's not forget that there are great critics who can't photograph or paint or whatever themselves worth mentioning while on the other hand some of the best in their field are rather limited in conveying a good critic.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3937630"><em>Ton Mestrom</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 20, 2009; 02:00 p.m.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I don't enter "Photo contests" either. The thought of some self-righteous twenty-five year old kid telling me what's what is just, well, let's just say........</em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em>that seems a bit strong.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to me. Notice that I was kind enough NOT to complete the sentence :-)<br>

You should've heard my Father "go off". And he could, and often DID, make it stick ! <br>

Similar opinions were voiced by artists like Arturo Toscanini, a household name.<br>

How about "Assassins!”........</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Bill--</p>

<p>When you get to the level of Toscanini, let us know, and we'll disallow critiques on your work from anyone under 30. Until then, as you like to say, "........."</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 22, 2009; 12:20 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Bill--</em></p>

 

<p><em>When you get to the level of Toscanini, let us know, and we'll disallow critiques on your work from anyone under 30. Until then, as you like to say, "........."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, my accomplishments speak for themselves, as does my craft. If you're not ready to see it, then me telling you isn't going to do anything excpt start a whizzing contest. As far as critiques go, I don't offer unsolicited critiques, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy.<br>

Thanks,</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Michelangelo, began scultping the David when he was a " self-righteous 26 year old kid ", I'm sure he didn't need no advice or critique on it from any " self- righteous old fart ". Mozart,...</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=934135"><em>Phylo Dayrin</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 23, 2009; 02:34 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Michelangelo, began scultping the David when he was a " self-righteous 26 year old kid ", I'm sure he didn't need no advice or critique on it from any " self- righteous old fart ". Mozart,...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phylo, it's been my experience that people with the craft of artisans like Michelangelo are not the least bit self righteous. Don't let age fool you. Most people who do have those characteristics are covering up for a distinct and obvious lack of talent.<br>

What's Moart got to do with it ? </p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't let age fool you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Look who's talking. That was exactly my point since you were the one who said : "The thought of some self-righteous twenty-five year old kid telling me what's what is just, well, let's just say..."</p>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=934135"><em>Phylo Dayrin</em></a><em> </em><a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 24, 2009; 06:53 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Don't let age fool you.</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p><em>Look who's talking. That was exactly my point since you were the one who said : "The thought of some self-righteous twenty-five year old kid telling me what's what is just, well, let's just say..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I said that. I don't get your point, please elucidate.<br>

Also, once again, what's Mozart got to do with any of this ?</p>

<p>Bill P. </p>

<p>What's got the 25-year old got to do with being self-righteous, but more directly with being unworthy of telling you " what's what " ? Because that was exactly what you wrote, not much point in trying to wrangle your way out of that. And apparently " Similar opinions were voiced by artists like Arturo Toscanini, a household name." Mozart, besides being a, uhm, household name, was just a little kid when he began composing his music, music that Toscanini, as a conductor, propably held in great respect. And yes, if there would have been one artist that held himself to be the most virtuous of all, held himself to be the one artist who's art strived to be the most worthy of God's own attention and consideration, then it was most definitely Michelangelo. I just call 'em as I see 'em. Like you did. Does it "stick" ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=934135"><em>Phylo Dayrin</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 24, 2009; 07:42 a.m.</em><br>

<em>What's got the 25-year old got to do with being self-righteous, but more directly with being unworthy of telling you " what's what " ? Because that was exactly what you wrote, not much point in trying to wrangle your way out of that. And apparently " Similar opinions were voiced by artists like Arturo Toscanini, a household name."</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Phylo, I'm not trying to wrangle out of anything. I'm trying to decipher what the heck you're trying to say here.<br>

If you disagree with me, fine. Spell it out. But I don't have the time to decipher your references to Mozart, at what age he wrote his first symphony, and whether Michelangelo held himself in great respect, as you surmise. How you arrived at that one beats me, but c'mon, just say it, what's on your mind ?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't enter "Photo contests" either. The thought of some self-righteous twenty-five year old kid telling me what's what is just, well, let's just say........</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A whole lot of projection and assumption in that statement. So, what you're saying, is that photo contests are always run by self-righteous persons under the age of 26? What if they're over 26? Maybe, that 25 year old has an advanced art degree, has studied art for a number of years, is quite conversant in art and - just possibly - you could <em>learn</em> something from them...</p>

<p>I like talking with people of all ages as I can't assign insights to a single generation or a person's age. It has to do with how open you are - and not how close-minded you project other people to be.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=86165"><em>Steve Swinehart</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Aug 24, 2009; 04:47 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I don't enter "Photo contests" either. The thought of some self-righteous twenty-five year old kid telling me what's what is just, well, let's just say........</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p><em>So, what you're saying, is that photo contests are always run by self-righteous persons under the age of 26?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No Steve, that's what you're saying. Where did I say "photo contests are always run by self-righteous persons under the age of 26?"<br>

Please point this out to me.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>in a nutshell i think it boils down to '<em>who you ask'</em><br>

but a community will never have an overall opinion, where everyone feels the same way about a particular, topic, concept or question<br>

<em><br /></em></p>

<p>It is undeniable that the art world outside of photography has spawned some great artists who are anything but conservative.</p>

<p>The conservatism of many photographers is in part created by the limitations of photography (it's opto-mechanical or opto-electronic nature, its automatism (not always) and its rendition of reality, or something close to it) and in part by the minds of many photographers, who sometimes (perhaps often) have not had the good (or ill) fortune to have been involved in the process of art creation, that which comes as much from the "heart" as from any compositional technique or approach.</p>

<p>Thinking "outside of the box" (no pun intended) is probably not the intention or desire of most photographers, which no doubt contributes to the feeling and fact that photographers are a conservative lot. My initial professional training was as a research engineer, a category of individuals often thought collectively of as quite conservative. On the other hand, great inventions and innovations in applied science are probably anything but conservative. We sometimes follow a bent that may be thought of as impractical, but that allows us to dream. Photographers who are not conservative, have a very similar ability.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092"><em>Arthur Plumpton</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 28, 2009; 09:38 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>It is undeniable that the art world outside of photography has spawned some great artists who are anything but conservative.....</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Having read the entire post, this is probably one of the best descriptions I've ever heard.<br>

This is a terrific summation.....</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>On the other hand, great inventions and innovations in applied science are probably anything but conservative. We sometimes follow a bent that may be thought of as impractical, but that allows us to dream. Photographers who are not conservative, have a very similar ability.</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well put !</p>

<p>Bill P.<em></em></p>

<p>Thanks, Bill. I must admit that I have to fight at not being conservative about image-making, but I guess that is part of the pleasure of dreaming and of photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092"><em>Arthur Plumpton</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 30, 2009; 11:12 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Thanks, Bill. I must admit that I have to fight at not being conservative about image-making, but I guess that is part of the pleasure of dreaming and of photography.</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Art, I have to struggle at not being bizarre !<br>

Photography affords a 'safe' way to be myself, whoever that is, I haven't met him yet.<br>

Hey, you have a pretty cool first name !</p>

<p>Bill P.<em></em></p>

<p>Doesn't interest in photo contests (or P.N ratings) directly indicate disinterest in significant photo values?</p>

<p>Yes? No?</p>

<p>In answering Yes or No, you can't help but commit an error.</p>

<p>Almost any collection of people will yield a group with differently developed skills, so in arriving at a generality of this kind, you can't help but commit an error of attribution.</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1354314">Reza Motaghedi</a> , Aug 15, 2009; 01:58 a.m.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was looking at the top rated photos and noticed a trend which was majority of photos classified as bird photography, landscape, nude and nature had a very high ratings but abstract photos had lower rating. Similarly any photos which looked classical had higher rating compared to those which were on modern side. Can we conclude that photo.net users are very conservative in terms of art and even when they like something modern it is a sort of cliche modern?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't speak for everyone else, but I dig photography for the "Freezing time" super power it gives me.<br>

I mean, yeah, there will always be a beautiful sparrow on the patio in the evening for you to take a shot of. But not THAT beautiful sparrow on the patio in the evening. THAT moment and situation is gone.<br>

So I think that's why people gravitate towards traditional photography subjects more than abstracts.<br>

But really, it's not important. No matter how good you are at a particular style or method, there will always be people who don't like it. I say don't sweat that small stuff and keep on doing what you do.</p>

<p>Great discussion. Please do start more like this one. I've been coming to the realiazation that there are reasons to why photography is a step-child to painting. One, it is 2D, and painting is 3D. Two, it is created all at once, and captured en masse, not created from scratch, developed and redone. Therefore, it is by nature less controlled. Third, and I know this will cause harumphs, it is basically the same look across the mass of participants, in that pixels all look the same, regardless of the subject matter. Painting offers no guarantees, but more chance of a unique personal style.<br /> I'm not saying no photography is art, but at least half of its artists are recorders of history and unique situations, and the others have been excellent practioners of movements that also existed in painting. The bw nude is OVER. Many started it, and Mapplethorpe took it to its logical conclusion. Ansel Adams, Curtis and other finished the bw large format landscape. Its over. I dont care if you took your 8x10 camera into the wilderness. The pictures are nice, but they can't touch Turner, or Van Gogh, or Monet, or Wyeth, or 1,000 lesser known landscape painters. I like shooting landscapes as well, but when I look at others, I could not care less. Wow, its sharp. Is that all you got? Sometimes there's a lot going on. Then I see a giant fantasy landscape in a museum, and I wonder where I've been living. Get off the internet and into a museum and see real artwork. See the preciousness and reality of a handmade object.<br /> The only thing new to photography is photoshop and possibly 3d, which really isnt photography, but it sure isnt painting. Photo purists, including most of the photo establishment, will not show this work, and they will not push it. Some of it is excellent, most of it is very gimmicky, so its hard to blame them, but the purists are going headlong into such boring work its, well, the same old story of the last 20-30 years. You ever get that feeling when you look at native american or african or egyptian art that the stuff is actually, truly art? Well, it's because its handmade, and has a tradition beyond the literal recording of reality. The reason B&W has power is because its an abstraction. You're at least one step out of reality. This is not to say color can't be powerful, but as powerful as Dali, Picasso, Rembrandt, Goya, Jacob Lawrence, Jim Woodring? The answer is sorry, buddy, no. You think your limited edition run of 100 inkjet/giclees (color copies as my painter friend calls them) can ever be as valuable as one solitary oil painting? Depends on your name, but still.<br /> Some photog has to be able to innovate, and the only ones I've seen might as well be illustrators their work is so transformed. I think some of this is new art, but the purists dont agree with me. Everyone's saving up for their $5k dSLRs and $125 toner cartridges (you need to buy 8!). So a hotel can buy the work? Oh yeah, that industry is in the dumps right now. At least the purists have it right that film and darkroom prints are authentic and have known half-lives. This is a horrific contradiction in the middle of a medium. The fact is that its easier to buy equipment and fiddle with it than put in ten years getting the training to be an artist.<br /> Sorry folks, not trying to be cranky. Just trying to think this stuff through. Photography may be a great vocation, but you are just making pretty pictures. Almost no photog is making durable art. Of course, almost no painters are either. It just seems that a from-scratch medium has a better chance of getting something deep and personal that impressed people with true skill than a machine that promises to make it easy and ultimately doesnt. Its like guitar hero vs learning guitar.<br /> The analogy of Michaelangelo and his brushes is so spot on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2345893"><em>Mark Onat</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Sep 23, 2009; 02:44 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Great discussion. Please do start more like this one.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know, right ?<br>

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>a machine that promises to make it easy and ultimately doesnt. Its like guitar hero vs learning guitar.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your aesthetic seems similar to mine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The only thing new to photography is photoshop and possibly 3d, which really isnt photography, but it sure isnt painting. Photo purists, including most of the photo establishment, will not show this work, and they will not push it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>How about that !</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>It all comes down to jargon. The artsy types use artsy jargon. The techy types use techy jargon. Neither understand the other. So, the other must be wrong. The very strange thing is that most people do know what they like, although they may not be able to articulate it.</p>

<p>The strange thing here is I got bored with this thread and quit reading, but still wanted to post my opinion. Usually I read all the posts first. Personally, I do not think my photography is unique and wonderful, I consider myself professionally competent when I work at it, but I often do not put that effort into it. So, I guess I am just not artsy.</p>