Why are Photographers (artists whatever..) , so serious?

[hans_beckert]

John:

 

Speak with caution about things you know not of.....

[andrew_somerset1]

Yes, I should know better.

 

Never mud-wrestle with a pig; you'll find out the pig enjoys it.

[james_kennedy2]

I, for one, love criticism, but only when it's lavish praise.

[dennis_couvillion]

"I am serious about fun..."

 

Well-spoken Peter...particularly the above quote.

 

What is wrong with everyone today? Is there a full moon?

 

Dennis

 

P.S Please tell me if I am posting too many w/nw shots. Don't want to piss anybody off, y'know... ;>)

[ray .]

Yeah, people have been really uptight today. Still wearing that shirt Dennis? ;)

 

Good post particularly from Peter and beautifully written comments by Ralph on this thread. Let's take the best and forget the other nonsense.

[dennis_couvillion]

"Still wearing that shirt Dennis?"

 

Naw, man....had to wash it. Dang. ;>)

 

Look, Ray, if this thing here falls through, we're gonna start our own forum and call it "The Funny Leica Forum". Okay? Anybody else in? ;>) (Either that or we have to kill the humorless bastards here.) ;>)

 

Dennis

[keith_merrill]

Why are Photographers (artists whatever..) , so serious? - Because their full of Angst, man. You can't crack a smile when you are sooooooo burdened.

[keith_merrill]

That should be they are. And I was an english major, see, I too am too angst filled to write correctly.

[travis1]

I feel artiste or photographers and people in fact in general, should always carry a sense of humour(humor?) with you all the time.

 

WHen you post something on the net, please, leave your egos on your lap and just laugh at yourself when you get laughed at and laugh louder at others who laughed at you.

 

Seriously, we are too serious!

 

:)(just in case...)

[ray_moth]

The following is unashamed plagiarism:

<br><br>

<i>Photography is like a love affair.<br>

If you don't take it seriously, it's no fun.<br>

If you do, it'll break your heart.</i>

[maria_s.]

Ray, I've got one too:

 

To do photography is to be. (Descartes)

To be is to do photography. (Voltaire)

Do be do be do. (Frank Sinatra)*

 

*Men's restroom in lower Manhattan (don't ask what I was doing there). Maria

[dan flanders]

All some people have to do is imagine themselves �artistes� and then their self-appointed status is supposed to render them exempt from the constraints imposed upon ordinary mortals. This amazing transformation usually occurs when they acquire a smidgen of ability with any kind of tool associated with the production of �art�, and particularly afflicts those who obtain a camera (the more glamorous, the greater their glory) and are thrilled to discover that they can sometimes squeeze an image therefrom (it need not be intelligible, but it helps). Then when someone who has seen countless effusions of similar questionable value dares to impugn one small detail they either fly into a fit of self-righteousness or retreat into a depression, finally realizing they have been deceiving themselves all along.

[vic_.]

The old saying: <B>"If you're rich, you're eccentric; if you're poor, you're insane."</B>

<P>Is there a dilution of the "art" of photography going on, now that anyone with a cell phone can be classified as one? What is an artist? I suppose everything is art. If it sells, then it's a masterpiece.

[al_kaplan1]

"...anyone with a cellphone..." is a photographer? So I guess anybody with a pencil is an artist.

[._._z]

Anyone who creates a work he calls art is. Whether it's good art or bad art is a

separate judgement.

[._._z]

<i> is just a person who has called what he/she has 'created' art.. </i><p>

 

Not really. Students of art know that this issue is a canard whose merits many like to

argue; Marcel Duchamp highlighted this point with his <i>Fountain</i>: <p>

 

http://www.sfmoma.org/collections/recent_acquisitions/ma_coll_duchamp.html <p>

 

You can argue its merits all you want, but the intent of the work is all that's needed

for art to be claimed to be so. Otherwise, we just have a Babel of conficting,

personalized definitions of "art." If you want to have that arguement, fine; do it with

someone else.

[kevin m.]

Difficult to have any argument at all with someone using hieroglypics for a name. Is there a highfalutin' literary reference to your moniker, too, or did you make it up all by yourself?

[._._z]

<i> Difficult to have any argument at all with someone using hieroglypics for a name.

</i><p>

 

You seem to have a lot of problems, Kevin. Didn't you call yourself a child in another

thread here? (And did no one disagree?)

[vic_.]

�[� Z , I have read some of your critiques, that is, when you have written more than just giving a numeric rating. Your critiques show a lot of insight and it is a shame that you do not write more while you are rating photographs. Why?

[henry_ting2]

Harvey, that "finger" thingie resulted in loads of trouble for an American Airline pilot in Brazil. And we thought we have problems here.

[._._z]

<i> Why? </i><p>

 

Artistic temperament.

[travis1]

ok, now that I have got your attention, anyone selling an M4 user?

 

serioulsy, please email me and quote me..hopefully with a pic or 2.;)

 

polar@cyberdude.com

 

you guys are ok, don't worry.;

[vic_.]

<I>Artistic temperament.</I>

<P>OK, makes sense now. Quite a temperament though! Appreciate your insights nonetheless (rare as they are).

<P>I liked this explanation of the whole ratings thing (to someone who experienced a higher rating than he thought he would get):

<P><I>It's the Kibbitz Effect. Not as bad as mate-rating, but better-than-deserved ratings from people who are 'being nice' because they have interacted with you previously... whether or not they realize they're doing it.</I>

<P>Makes a case for anonymous ratings being the only purely unbiased ones.

[nesrani]

"Anyone who creates a work he calls art ..is just a person who has called what he/she has 'created' art.. "

 

No, this is wrong, sorry. Art is a lot of things, including what gets into galleries, and its meaning has evolved historically. But all of these uses add up to a set of meanings for the word which do correspond to a component of our "form of life". A gun is not a gun just because I call it so, similarly art is not art just because I call it so. Or to stay within the more social domain, a game is not a game because I decide to call it that - for instance, torturing a dog to death is not a game; if we were to call it such, it would be in an ironic sense. Similarly art is something which has agreed boundaries in our lives (and part of the agreement is that it those boundaries should be relatively vague and open to re-agreement) - again, torturing a dog to death could not easily be art.

 

Kevin - don't you know that it's rude to make comments about people's names? It's really getting tiresome. Either find something substantive to say, or drop it.

[nesrani]

Although I would also disagree with the argument from intention, Z - intention is a valuable metric _inside_ the social form we call "art", especially when it comes to revolutionary movements (hence Duchamp), but it does not and cannot set the bounds (the grammar, if you like) of that social form, because meaning is always conventional and thus a shared social property.