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

<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>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>I doubt that is much different from the world at large, photo.net probably has little to do with it. People in general have long liked more "classic" art than "edgy" art.</p>

<p>I agree with Josh. Most art movements I can think of are the result of small groups of like-minded people getting together. Photo.net is too big and all-inclusive to have much of a definable attittude towards anythng let alone something as subjective as art.</p>

<p>Colin:</p>

<p>If PN had a "definable attitude", it wouldn't continue to exist. And, although I agree with Josh about PN mirroring the "world at large," I also think that it continues to exist because of people willing to push the envelope.</p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>Reza,<br>

I find very little discussion on this site about art. There are endless forums on equipment, software and editing, but editing what ?<br>

As a retired Art director, I find that most photographers have little to no artistic training and are typically consumed by the 'magic' of the perfect lens that would give them that award winning photo. I hear precious few discussions of the aesthetics of light, form, composition, space, texture, and the like. I'm also amazed at the de facto standard of certain editing programs that are considered mandatory to produce an acceptable picture.<br>

If Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio were as obsessd with his brushes as photographers are about their gear, well, you can see where I'm going here.<br>

Perhaps that's why photo.net users have a very conservative attitude towards art..... </p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>I think it's pretty hard to say "photo.net users are" ... <em>anything</em>, actually. Any more than it is to say, "people who live in the Netherlands, Yemen, Argentina, the UK, the US, Spain, Iceland, Japan, Croatia, Germany, Brazil, Canada, Belgium [and so on!] are ... any particular thing, other than a bunch of humans. I don't find that they embrace or spurn deliberately noncomformist, "edgy" (faux or otherwise), or if-you-don't-get-it-you're-not-cool art any more than the general population does. If that's conservative, then it's easier to say that <em>the world </em>is generally a conservative place. <br /><br />Let's face it: if rebellious, cultural-button-pushing, dangerous, sweat-inducing, mom-and-dad-infuriating, iconoclastic, "modern" art <em>weren't </em>generally outside of the mainstream for almost everybody on the planet, well... it would be mainstream, and lose all of its ability to generate buzz in urban newspaper art columns. The only way that art can be outside of the norm is for most people to find it that way. If the average photo.net user did nothing but make, apppreciate, rate, and critique on what most people would consider to be ecclectic, avant garde, bleeding edge expression, that <em>that</em> would be the new normal for the thousands and thousands of people who use this site. <br /><br />Where do you go from <em>there</em> to be edgy? Back to cat snapshots! It's the circle of life.</p>

<p>you are absolutely right about that Bill. But since I noticed that some people don't even know the difference between stucture and texture that's hardly a surprise I think. There will always be gearheads who will define themselves by the kind of equipment they use rather than what they can do with it and subsequent results. There are a lot of people out there, in any field, that consider the means to be more important than the end.</p>

<p>As far as the aesthetics of light, form, composition and such are concerned that requires some basic knowledge and understanding and given the variety of people here I'm not sure everyone here has that to the same degree or may even be remotely interested in discussing that.</p>

<p>As far as the OP's question is concerned, it's as much a generalisation as a simplification. And basing that on what you can find in the TRP doesn´t help either. There are lots of top notch photographers on this site who´s work you´ll never find there simply because they don´t enter the rating game, THE method of getting there. I´ve long since found a lot of them who´s work is outstanding. If one were to put that in such a equation the question I think would have been a different one.</p>

<p>Thank you for all the responses. Josh you are right. When I told photo.net users I meant people in general because people from all over the world are here.<br />And I agree with William too. Photographers these days are more interested about technical aspects of photography than artistic aspects of it. Even when they talk about the photo itself they never go beyond " nice photo, it has a good contrast or texture" while contrast, textureand tones are just tools. Or when they say good composition, they are not interested to know what elements are in that composition which make the photo exciting other than rule of third and golden rectangle. They just use some formula in their photography. And forget about those core elements that a photographer is trying to communicate whether it be just a feeling or a meaning; that is never spoken.<br />Matt good point; maybe that is why classic art is mainstream. Otherwise it wouldn't be classic. but the point is that absract or what we call it modern art today, or even post modern, tableau and ... have started years ago. They should be sort of mainstream now but still most people in general don't like them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photographers these days are more interested about technical aspects of photography than artistic aspects of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think this is a truism outside the internet. Internet forums seem to attract this type of discussion. I see other photographers regularly outside of internet forums and equipment discussions are a lot rarer. I work with beginners and we don't talk about equipment much. Most people I run into like to look at photos, not cameras. </p>

<p>I also don't think it's about "these days." As long as I have been on the internet, back to around 1988, photography boards have been dominated by discussion of technical stuff. Part of this was that pre-web, photos weren't displayed, and pre-broadband-everywhere, not that many photos were displayed. At least now there is discussion of photos, even if it hits the lowest common denominator of "what did you use?"</p>

<p><strong>William, et al,</strong> I have found the Philosophy of Photography forum, where this thread actually resides, to be the closest to what you're talking about. For the most part, I stay out of the gear rooms. I have a few technical gurus I consult periodically about those matters.</p>

<p>Lately, some of us have been having a little more nuts-and-bolts aesthetic-oriented discussions in the Philosophy section. It's still got a philosophical bent, which I know turns a lot of people off. I also know that some of the personalities and style of argumentation in that forum has turned a lot of people off. The attendance there is clearly down lately and I think it's due to that.</p>

<p>But in recent months, we've had some interesting discussions on things that relate to both art and philosophy . . . intimacy, idealism, cliché, sense vs. experience, what is art? (an old favorite), truth and photography, gesture, religious imagery in art, and the photographer's place in the photograph. As I say, some of us have been trying to keep the conversations a little more down to earth and on a nuts and bolts level. Some prefer to keep the discussions more abstract and almost at a meta-philosophy level, often getting into matters like why we use the words we do and what it shows about us that we are talking like this. (These forums, to maintain their open nature, have to allow for a variety of approaches by a variety of people.) We also get a fair amount of what I like to call Internet drive-bys. People who come by with what they think are clever one-liners, usually suggesting that they, themselves, are above this type of discussion and are just out shooting, not talking. That can be a distraction.</p>

<p>In any case, we haven't actually discussed some of the things you've mentioned specifically, but it seems like the Philosophy forum would be the place to do it. I encourage anyone here to start a thread that talks about light, space, etc. By the way, William, I have brought up and discussed texture in many of these threads. I find it an incredibly significant aesthetic aspect of photographs.</p>

<p>If a moderator feels that such topics would NOT be appropriate to the Philosophy forum, please let us know. I think the question or initiating post would need to be appropriately approached so that it's not strictly from a technical standpoint. "How do I work with shadows in exposure and in Photoshop?" would NOT be appropriate. But, "How do we utilize shadow to express ourselves?" would seem a great topic for a Philosophy thread.</p>

<p>If people don't want the Philosophy forum to cover the kinds of issues William has brought up, because "Philosophy" may, indeed, give a certain spin on the way the discussions are going to proceed, then I'd suggest adding a forum called "The Aesthetics of Photographs" where these matters could be discussed.</p>

<p>". . . if rebellious, cultural-button-pushing, dangerous, sweat-inducing, mom-and-dad-infuriating, iconoclastic, 'modern' art <em>weren't </em>generally outside of the mainstream for almost everybody on the planet, well... it would be mainstream, and lose all of <strong>its ability to generate buzz in urban newspaper art columns</strong>." --Matt [bold added for emphasis]</p>

<p>The general point is a great one. If it were more accepted it would be mainstream and likely not terribly effective art. But the more specific point is a (seemingly conservative) view. It's a view about edgy art one hears expressed often on PN, though as has been said there is thankfully no monolithic bent among PN members. I would talk about edgy art in terms simply of its emotional effects and impact on the individual viewer or even the collective viewer. I wouldn't approach it from the standpoint of how the "art world" operates. I would look directly at the art and not just the art that makes it into galleries and museums. I might recognize the cynical side of cutting-edge art (a valid viewpoint for sure because there is plenty to be cynical about in the art world), the part about money and egotistic gallery curators and buzz in certain circles. But I'd focus more on the side of alternative art that makes significant social and political statements, that does hit a lot of us in the emotional gut, that is going on in many of the lofts and inner-city back-alley apartments and never sees the light of day in the newspaper art columns. Often, really cutting-edge art is the stuff I have to seek out, not the stuff I can sit back and read about in the Sunday paper.</p>

<p>I am not quite sure what we used to call modern art 60 or 70 years ago should be considered edgy today. I am surprised why they are not mainstream by now and I know for sure that in some cultures and communities that type of art is part of thier daily lives more than other cultures. . That is why I was talking about conservatism. A painter like Kandinsky introduced abstract forms in 1911. a photographer like Andrea Kertesz was taking photographs which even today look quite creative ( they were not just reproduction of a scene or face with good lighting or contrast) in 1920s. But I have noticed that for many people these type of art is still indigestible. That tells something. I don't forget that in one of these forums ( I think it was in philosophy of photography forum in PN) one of the photographers wrote a full page attacking to and insulting people who liked post-modern art and he was approved and cheered by almost all other PN users (apart from one of them). So we can conclude that majority are still conservative when it comes to art.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't forget that in one of these forums ( I think it was in philosophy of photography forum in PN) one of the photographers wrote a full page attacking to and insulting people who liked post-modern art and he was approved and cheered by almost all other PN users (apart from one of them). So we can conclude that majority are still conservative when it comes to art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That´s quite a stretch. Drawing such a conclusion on that one single example is food for thought in another context though. People react to art in different ways, most basically on what they like or don´t like. Those that have studied art and have gained a bit more insight may appreciate or reject it on a different level. Taking up your example I think that making generalisations is never a good basis for a worthwhile discussion. Post-modernism consists of the work of a great many people to begin with in a great variety. Your own original premise is merely a similar generalisation.</p>

<p>But even if there would be something as A Photonet user, being `conservative` is for a large part only semantics because you simply project too much into it.</p>

<p>Ton my criticism is not based on one example. It is a trend. But if you think any criticism is generalization or I am projecting something into it, then let it be. I still believe is some parts of the world or in some communities people are more familiar with modern art.</p>

<p>Reza, I think the scope of your original question is far too wide. Of course there are lots of people who are not only familiar with but even appreciate modern art and as already has been said a fairly generic site like this represents merely a crossection of people. But concluding that the average user here tends to be conservative in terms of art on the basis of what you´ve seen in the TRP is in fact too far a stretch I think.</p>

<p>Conservative is merely a word and one that´s pretty hard to define in this context. Had you asked if most people here are familiar with modern art the answers would have been quite different I suspect. But it would still need a better or more precise definition to begin with.</p>

<p>Frankly, I personally suspect that although this is a site about photography the average user here, given the variety in backgrounds, is hardly familiar with photographic history. If that should indeed be true it doesn´t necessarily follow that they are either classic or modern in what they like or appreciate. Short of doing an indepth query we can all conclude whatever we want but the only thing it will amount to is merely supposition. That was my whole point and as such your question was too much of a generalisation.</p>

<p> Most people are visual illiterates, and Photo.net's membership is no different. Those with a little education are catching up to Modernism. The majority of sites on the web are hardware-centered, this one more than most. Only a few lists, mostly small, and some blogs address the arts with any regularity and in depth. One does have to seek it out, but it's there.</p>

<p> One problem is that while equipment can be bought, visual literacy must be <em>learned, </em> & developed/understood individually,<em> </em> across a lifetime,<em> </em> and goes well beyond nuts, bolts, formulas -- and the products our advertisers/sponsors sell. Matt's easy caricature of a tiny and extreme sector of the art world is gentle compared to the openly hostile and invalidating comments we regularly get regarding the same topic in this forum. </p>

<p>In the Philosophy of Photography forum we have recently explored many issues concerning visual literacy and art while tiptoeing through the usual troll bait minefield so as not to derail the threads.</p>

<p>I see Ton's point about the question. Could it have been better qualified? Yes. Something like "most" or a "great majority" of photo.net users..." would have been better.</p>

<p>___________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most people are visual illiterates, and Photo.net's membership is no different.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite so. In this country (you can figure out where I live, I'm sure) educational institutions, generally speaking, are no longer concerned with traditional liberal arts education, preferring instead to offer vocational training, so fewer and fewer people each year develop the ability to tackle complex concepts like art. Appreciating anything requires understanding, and since so few people have the education background required to be able to understand art (of any format, not just photography), few go beyond a very basic level of appreciation. It's far easier to stick to what you know is considered 'good' art than to go out on your own and make your own observations, which might cause others to criticize your views.</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

<p>I wonder how many members of this site would "approve" of Mapplethrope's 'X Portfolio' ...</p>

<p>I think you will find that in general, most of the public is not just ignorant of art but is pretty anti art. Any mention of composition, balance, light, movement is generally immediately met by ignorant and arrogant assertions that you are trying to push your art-school mumbo jumbo on them. This is generally followed by quite a bit of self back patting and comments like "art is whatever you want it to be, there are no rules man!" We live in an atmosphere of self important, self engrandized people who are so blinded by their own egos that they can't see their own faces for their nose. They can complain all day long that their images get low ratings or that they can't sell them or that not enough people like them, but they have no desire to learn anything about making art, because that takes work and time and energy. Or worse, they are convinced that because their parents and friends have been telling them how talented they are for all these years that that means they don't need to know anything about art, and then they wonder why no-one outside of their support network is interested in their work. It's much easier to blame everyone else, including the "high art" establishment of fancy art criticism and terminology that's oppressing them somehow, than to exert any personal energy into becoming artists. Because you know, everyone is an artist and everything is art and everything is acceptable. Yawn.</p>

<p>And "edgy" art entirely depends on sitting inside of a conservative society to be considered edgy. As someone who has quite a bit of experience in the bottom tiers of society, I don't find any of this "iconoclast" art specifically any more interesting because it pushes buttons. In a world where every other person you talk to has tattoos and takes illegal drugs, the envelope-pushing art really doesn't have much to say that you can't see on a t-shirt or someone's sleeve or in a song or movie. When you get to that level of saturation, the best thing society can do is forget about shocking each other and try to get back to the basics of just generating good art. There are still some amazing landscapes to be captured and intricate patterns of reflected light on a staircase to be considered.</p>

<p>I like pretty pictures.</p>

<p>Most viewers like pretty pictures as RJ has expressed in the above post. A few viewers like a more sophisticated image to observe and appreciate. Fortunately here on PN, we have plenty of both to even things out.</p>

<p>Fred:</p>

<p>I suspect some PN members who seem to shy away from some of the "pure" philosophical discussions in the Philosophy of Photography forum shy away from philosophy in general, for various reasons. </p>

<p>Patrick:</p>

<p>Your comments are right on the money, and painfully so. My first career involved teaching philosophy at a community college in Florida. It didn't last very long because the philosophy offerings had no demonstrable value in terms of vocational training. I was trying to get students to start challenging themselves in their thinking, and all they wanted from me was some assurance that the course would prepare them for a job.</p>