In the end the appreciation of photography is completely subjective

<p>"Julie,you are a very creative mind."</p>

<p>However, you need to move on with your photography, you have the ability.</p>

<p>I hope you understand,not a crit...but just a helpful suggestion</p>

<p> </p>

Allen,<br>

I think nothing is beneath me.<br>

Just being here on and off.<br>

Cheers.

<p>"I think nothing is beneath me."</p>

<p>Throw away words.</p>

<p>Not an answer.</p>

<p>"Lucas, with respect, you have totally ignored the photo I have posted"</p>

<p>Throw away words.</p>

<p>Not an answer!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Elvis on black velvet paintings is not art. It's kitsch.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> My youngest son is off to college and I was cleaning out his closet and there was a Velvet Elvis in there. I took it to the Thrift Shop for donation along with James Dean and a bunch of other stuff. I belong to the either I like it or I don't club and I do not care for Velvet Elvis that much. I like Elvis the real guy ok, but not enough to buy a record.</p>

<p><strong>Allen Herbert - "</strong><br>

"Julie,you are a very creative mind."<br>

However, you need to move on with your photography, you have the ability.<br>

I hope you understand,not a crit...but just a helpful suggestion</p>

<p>The usual barbarisms and rude, unsolicited advice aside, Allen...two questions:</p>

<p>1) What exactly makes you think Julie needs to change anything in her photography?</p>

<p>2)And how does it fit into this thread on subjectivity?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p> usual barbarisms and rude</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not "rude" and especially not "barbaric" ! <br>

Banal, yes. <br>

We all need to "move on", if we have the ability, including Luis, Julie - and surely also me.</p>

<p>Not "rude" and especially not "barbaric" !</p>

<p>Subjectively (haha) speaking from personal experience, yes, but I'll leave it to Anders to lead by example, and pull this out of its present quagmire. I'm sure the rest will follow.</p>

<p>Luis I'm dreaming of a moment where all these marvelous people in Photonet, you included, stop shying away from openly formulating their very subjective appreciation of what others are doing in the field of photography. Only by that revolutionary change will we learn from each other. The rest is small-talk. Friendly, comfortable and slightly boring.<br /> No, no, no ! I did not write that. Don't bother !</p>

<p>I wouldn't mind a substantive critique of any of our work, though the Philosophy forum is NOT the place for that. However, I'm not so sure about trying to masquerade a put-down as a helpful suggestion, which unfortunately is what I think Allen did. Making a generic suggestion that another photographer needs to move on with their photography without giving more specific insight or substance doesn't seem terribly helpful to me.</p>

<p>I would also question criticizing someone's work because you disagree with the philosophical points they are making.</p>

<p>As to thinking that my proposing we look at my work for clues into what I've been saying about interaction and relationship somehow means that <em>"they walk alone . . . without any care for thoughts"</em>, that's kind of far from what I had in mind. I suggested my photos precisely as accompanying illustrations of what I was saying, not in this case to be just looked at in isolation. This is a Philosophy forum, not a gallery. So using photos as examples can tie into the ideas we're expressing and aren't just being paraded as art. As a matter of fact, the moderators have reminded us over the months that's the purpose of uploading photos in this particular forum.</p>

<p>Anders, if you had only thrown Allen into your dream-list, I would not have said a thing. Again, I await your lead.</p>

>>> The rest is small-talk. Friendly, comfortable and slightly boring.

 

Yup. And I'd add entertaining. Also, the best oblique and backhanded insults of any of the forums!

<p>Oh, geez. The icing on the cake just got even thicker.</p>

<p>I don't eat cakes and don't care.</p>

<p>Addressing the original topic, of subjectivity in appreciation of photographs:</p>

<p>Of course. Agree. Even more: what is "objective", after-all? Is a rose objectively red, or subjectively? Is it not that "red" itself is but a particular wave-length sensitive to human eye, hence subjective? Was rose still "red" if humans, in the process of evolution, didn't end up with eyes?<br>

Rose is red because we are around. Rose is separated from the surrounding leaves, because humans noted it (for bees to be there to pollinate, etc), and attached an air-vibration (sound) on it.<br>

Without humans, there were no nothing. Even God is there because we put it there.</p>

<p>Nozar, that's a very anthropocentric view of things. Roses don't depend on humans for their existence. Without humans, there is plenty! A whole universe of things. It's time humans recognized they don't dominate this universe.</p>

<p>Fred<br>

It is a delicate issue. It is the language.<br>

Rose and mountains do not "exist" without humans, because the very word "exist" is subjectively ,manmade. </p>

<p>Put it this way, lets assume entire spectrum of energy (all wave-lengths) did exist without humans, then, who were around to be sensitive to the particular band that we, humans, define red?</p>

<p>In another way, assume humans evolved with another set of members, without eyes, ears, no hands to grab. Then do you think the thing called "nature" on which we are "objectively" discussing now, was the same? Our talk was the same? Did we still talking "subjective" and "objective"? Rose, mountain?</p>

<p>Again, my point is not that roses did not exist independently, but that "exist" itself is a subjectively and a human concept. So are other things, and feelings, and notions, and concepts. Things are, because we "talk".</p>

<p>Whatever. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it . . . ? I simply disagree with your claim that without humans there were nothing. That's an existential claim and a false one, IMO. And if it feeds into the notion that everything must be "subjective," I find it even more objectionable.</p>

<p>Fred - thanks for the argument.<br>

We know that some of us are born without eyes functioning (blind). And we know if we talk to these poeple, and if in out sentences we use words such as "beautiful" and "red", they understand. In fact, they very likely, and "objectively" may say, or rather admit, that, they can not see red because they can not see. But here, the delicate point is that, they use the word "see" quite inteligiently, and in proper context. Now, they agree that Red exists, even though they can not "see", but do not agree (very very important point here) that they do not understand "see". otherwise how come we could continue talking about it with them. The same is with us, the seeing, whenwe use, thje word "exist". yes, I know what you mean by that, and you know what I mean by that, but this word "exist" is aonly a convention between us. </p>

<p>Ludvig Wittgenstein makes a nice example. He calls it Beetle experiment. He gives identical boxes to ten people and tell them that what you have in the box, is a Beetle. One can have a shoe, the other a key, one can have two eggs, and one can have empty. But they all are told, what they have in the box is a beetle. Now he used the word, the way we use it. Says, all with beetle in their bpox come here; then all go there. etc. Like that is my perception of consious, and pain, etc, that only I have seen, but we all talk about.<br>

I use this example, and story, to say how we make words. The only test of correctness is if it works, like a beetle. I know what exist means, and you know that too. But this is only an agreement between us. It is between humans. </p>

<p>And what exactly is subjective about an agreement among humans?</p>

<p>It is our common experience that is different from that between dogs and horses. We share a same body, hence requirements, functionality, and therefore same relation with whatever we call "outside world". We use common words, as tools, to live easier together. Again, as Wittgenstein said: if a lion could talk, I couldn't understand; how do I know what a lion's world looks like?</p>

<p>I don't know what any of that has to do with so-called subjectivity. But, honestly, I grew tired of this thread days ago and don't really want to get into again, because I don't see its relation to photography.</p>

<p>Fred</p>

<p>Just in case you came back to see, and anxious to know:</p>

<p>The thread is on subjectivity (or not) of photography. I made the example of a (born) blind knowledge of the word seeing. If to 'see" as I said, is subjective, then what is objective?</p>

<p>"P.S. I think however that I should not have used "completely" in my caption." Lucus.</p>

<p>　<br>

Yes, that I agree a step a bit too far.</p>

<p>　<br>

"Julie,you are a very creative mind." Allen.<br>

However, you need to move on with your photography, you have the ability.Allen<br>

I hope you understand,not a crit...but just a helpful suggestion Allen</p>

<p>　<br>

Jeez, i didn't really want to give some folks the vapours.</p>

<p>　<br>

We all would like to " move on with our photography"...Indeed who really wants to stay in the same place until the end of time.. If someone tells you have a creative mind and have ability....I would see it as a friendly comment...particulary as they have made it clear that it was not a criticism...admitedly it could have been worded better However, some folks look into twisted mirrors and will quickly jump to the most negative connotation they can put on anything particulary if they have a axe to grind.</p>

<p>　<br>

"I would also question criticizing someone's work because you disagree with the philosophical points they are making." Fred.</p>

<p>What a mean comment based on the supposition of a few words without even asking for clarification.. It makes you wonder where that meaness was really being directed.</p>

Allen, you, and a few others are a breath of fresh air. Thanks...