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

[joshroot]

With all the continued bitching about �[�Z's ratings, I'm almost interested in going through some number of them to see if I disagree with him.

 

Almost, but not nearly enough. I have a new jazz CD to practice my drumming to. And after that a pretty girl in my bed.

 

Goodnight internet.

[._._z]

<i> Perhaps the fact that according to you AZ, anyone can call themselves an 'artiste'

</i><p>

 

I'd never use that pretentious declaration. Try again.

[._._z]

<i> I'm almost interested in going through some number of them </i><p>

 

Feel free. Some of those most offended by my ratings have done just that, then

stalked & harassed me as I commented on others' photos. (Another answer to your

question, Vikram.) <p>

 

On photo.net you can more easily and quickly see some of those photos I rated most

highly:

 

http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/one-critic?rater=116858&period=2000

[fotografz]

What on earth could compel someone to relentlessly stalk this public (mostly amateur)

forum to the tune of so many rating postings? We obviously all have the right, but it

do so would indicate an annal/compulsive disorder bordering on the psychotic.

 

Someone needs to get a life.

[travis1]

Ok, all be serious now!

 

http://www.photographic.com/lenses/137/

[henry_ting2]

Take it easy Marc.

For a layback, nice guy, its the first time I've seen you blow a steam.

[dennis_couvillion]

"What on earth could compel someone to relentlessly stalk this public (mostly amateur) forum to the tune of so many rating postings? We obviously all have the right, but it do so would indicate an annal/compulsive disorder bordering on the psychotic."

 

...can't say that Marc's take is entirely wrong. And therein it's a shame because AZ may actually have something constructive to add to this forum. I can't say with certainty that he does, but only that he has demonstrated a sufficient knowledge about photography and art that he might.

 

The problem, AZ, is that by employing a hit and run rating technique of unusual proportion, your motivation is understandably called into question. There are many immature people who lurk on photo.net with the intention of creating mischief at the expense of others. At first glance, some people may put you in that category.

 

In my case, I understand that not everyone finds my stuff interesting. But I like to post to get some sort of informative feedback. That helps me become a better photographer. I'm just curious, tough, why you rate all of my photos without any comments. The ratings are bullsh*t; we all know that. If you are knowledgable about photography and art, as you appear to be, you should also understand that the ratings are virtually meaningless. Why don't you post constructive comments instead?

 

If you don't find my work interesting, why do you go out of your way to rate each and every picture I post? It's just unusual. Regardless whether I think the ratings are bullsh*t, it is a bit annoying to have someone continuously tell me that most of my pictures are mediocre or less. I got that point in your first 30 ratings. You don't have to keep telling me. I'm trying to do better ;>)

 

FWIW, I have no intention of pulling my stuff off photo.net if you don't stop. This is a wonderful community of photographers and it is indeed truly rewarding to exchange ideas with many of them. Although I don't particularly like the ratings system as it doesn't add anything but a competitive element, we're stuck with it. I would just hope that you would participate in a more productive way. We are already well-stocked with people who just like to annoy others...

 

Regards,

 

Dennis

[vic_.]

<I>Some of those most offended by my ratings have done just that, then stalked & harassed me as I commented on others' photos.</I>

<P>�[� Z, sorry to hear of this. I can empathize because it happened to me in another intrnet group. They plastered my home and work addresses and phone numbers, as well as all kinds of salacious fabrications on the web (and I had never met these people!), and for a while I thought some Waco style nut would come knocking on my front door. I was more concerned for my wife and her family, who till today have no idea about any of this. I still don't understand what motivates people to do these things. On top of that the untrue crap is still on the web, so I can never escape it.

[fotografz]

"And therein it's a shame because AZ may actually have something constructive to add

to this forum. I can't say with certainty that he does, but only that he has

demonstrated a sufficient knowledge about photography and art that he might."

 

How would he have the time to be constructive? Or even to be observant? The guy

has rated 40,000 images. 40,000! Even if we gave him the benefit of the doubt, and

said to upload an image, study it a moment, rate it, and close it took an average of 5

minutes that's 200,000 minutes... or 3,333 hours spent evangelizing on a semi-

amateur public forum. Seems if there were some smarts behind the anonymity, it

could be put to better use.

[._._z]

Some here excel in whiningmoaningbitching about others' ratings on photo.net,

fine -- I guess they need a hobby (besides posting here). To get back to the subject

of this thread, perhaps the reason you're so serious about ratings, or who rates, or

who doesn't spend time commenting (that is, when not complaining about the

comments themselves) may be because you don't have the ability to ignore ratings

you dislike.

 

travis's inital post was right ... it's "probably an ego issue." If you don't like a rating or

a comment you could let it slide. But that's too hard for some, I suppose.

[dennis_couvillion]

Thou misseth the point, Mister Symbol Man. You don't comment, or at least you don't on my photos. You just engage in a strange exercise of massive ratings. That's fine. It's your right. But don't bitch because some people think you're a weirdo for doing that. It's their right to comment about your anonymous ratings. Bottom line is that your ratings exercise seems designed more to yank people's chains than to constructively contribute to photo.net. And now, you're the one complaining?

 

P.S. I would LOVE to see some samples of your work.

[fotografz]

"... may be because you don't have the ability to ignore ratings you dislike."

 

Anyone can ignore a fly or two. 40,000 flies is another matter.

 

"... I guess they need a hobby (besides posting here)."

 

This from a person that must eat, sleep, and excrete in front of his computer.

 

"... it's "probably an ego issue."

 

You're right AZ, 40,000 ratings is an ego issue of titanic proportions. One with a

demonstrable goal of quantity not quality.

[._._z]

<i> don't bitch because some people think you're a weirdo for doing that. </i><p>

 

I'm not bitching, I'm answering travis's question (which is about the bitchers, not me).

And yes, others <b>are</b>

bitching -- thought they seem loathe to recognize it.

[._._z]

Marc, is your ego hurt because I rate your photos with less than adulatory numbers,

or because you dislike that I'm using photo.net in a way that the people running find

fine (but you don't) and can't do anything about it? Chill out.

[fotografz]

I sorry, touch a nerve did we Bailey?

 

Oh my, a poor self-styled wasted genius. Unable, or lacking the courage, to make

images of his own, he lashes out at others who try. Frantically rushing to judgment

with 40,000 ratings in a pathetic attempt be among those who do have the courage.

 

Nice life's work there Bailey ; -)

 

".. or because you dislike that I'm using photo.net in a way that the people running

find fine (but you don't) and can't do anything about it?" -AZ (AKA Bailey Seals)

 

I can, and have done something about it. It finally dawned on me to do the math. You

are nothing more than the Mac Donald's of photo.net... striving for a "Billion Served".

If that's what the "people running " photo.net want, that's their business, I have a

business of my own.

[._._z]

<i> I sorry, touch a nerve did we Bailey </i><p>

 

You're the complainer here, Marc, not I, so please reevaluate whose nerve

is being touched. <p>

 

<i> I can, and have done something about it. </i><p>

 

You are still posting on photo.net, you are still upset by and complaining about me, I

am still acting legally on photo.net and you haven't deleted any of your photos. What

did you do: buy a voodoo doll? Nah, never mind, I don't quite care.

[._._z]

<i> A gun is not a gun just because I call it so ... art is something which has agreed

boundaries in our lives </i><p>

 

A gun (or a table) can be a walnut-cracker if I call it so. Whether it's a good one is

subject to discussion. I feel the same goes for art. Boundaries are limited by culture

and time, and are so variable (even within a culture or a time) as to be too

burdensome to be agreed upon. An acquaintance once showed me a large collection

of strange of strange implements he had collected and mounted: some old and

rusted, some new and bulbous and plastic. At first I didn't realize what they were --

but they were beautiful objects/artifacts, some looking like parts from 50s-era toy

ray guns. After a minute or two I realized that they were veterinary syringes for

different-sized animals, some new, some quite old. Were they also art? They were not

designed as such, although I'm sure design was a consideration in some cases. But

they were compelling, beautiful objects and if he'd wanted to call them art, fine with

me.

[fotografz]

" ... you are still upset by and complaining about me, I am still acting legally on

photo.net..."

 

Who said what you do is illegal here? It's your ethos that's being discussed.

Discrimination can't be part of it when you've raced through 40,000 images... the

math shows clearly that. It reveals that no one should take you seriously because you

didn't take their efforts seriously enough to give it any thought.

 

" ... and you haven't deleted any of your photos".

 

So, is that your mission, the "cleansing" of all that you dislike?

 

Besides, why would I delete anything based on a rating? Because of some annal/

compulsive individual who's made it he's life's mission to piss away his intellect on

photo.net? Get real.

[grant_.]

internet catfight....how exciting....

[fotografz]

Hisssss, grrrrr, hisssssss... meow ; -)<div></div>

[andrew_somerset1]

Cool picture! I'll give it 4/4. :-)

[keith_merrill]

hehehe, Andrew, that was funny.

[._._z]

<i> Who said what you do is illegal here? ... So, is that your mission??? </i><p>

 

I never said it was illegal, or wrong, but you seem incensed by it regardless. And

that's just tough for you, Mac, no matter how much or how loud you boo hoo here. If

you think I have a mission you're <u>reallly</u> not thinking clearly ... not that you

were Swarovski before. <p>

 

To have an intellect to piss away -- so that's why you're jealous! ROFL. But at least I

hope you're happy with that voodoo doll, Marc.

[fotografz]

Bailey, you label anyone questioning you as "boo hooing" in an attempt to negate their

challenges. Yet, we all have the right to speak up ESPECIALLY when it is concerning a

person who has rated 40,000 images with few constructive comments in relation to

that massive number. Nor has posted a single image in a forum gallery dedicated to,

and engineered for, that purpose.

 

The fact remains, regardless of how many rebuttals you write, or lofty art treatises

you apply to primarily amateur efforts, massive ratings like that reveals a lack of

quality thinking, or any kind of human sensitivity, or the sharing of knowledge (the

primary purpose of a public forum). That's the challenge you have not addressed, but

instead continuously put it off to "it's a cry baby ego thing" to duck the issue.

 

In the end, nothing will change. You are you. But at least doing the math has revealed

the true worth of your efforts.

 

But I apologize for keeping you from your mission here debating with me. You must

be falling behind on your daily ratings quota.

[EricM]

40,000 useless ratings? What a waste of skin.