Genre Prejudice

[joewhite]

<p>I was wondering if it's common to have a general dislike of certain styles of photography. It seems like it would be, but I'm just curious.<br>

I don't care for portraiture very much. This is NOT to say that there's anything wrong with it. I have seen some very artistic and/or technically superb portraits here and elsewhere and I've tried to look at some of them in appreciation, but they just don't do anything for me.<br>

Animal portraits are different, I like some of them. Human portraits...eh.<br>

If my belief is correct, there are probably some folks who don't care much for flowers, birds, landscapes, city views, etc.<br>

I definitely don't mean this as any sort of "my art appreciation is better than yours" thread, because there are just too many ways of looking at the world, including art, for there to be right or wrong ones.<br>

Unless you disagree with me, of course! ;)</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I was wondering if it's common to have a general dislike of certain styles of photography."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't say 'dislike'; more a case of indifference. I guess it just speaks to individual preferences. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Forensic photography will absolutely make you lose your appetite.</p>

[joewhite]

<p>You're right, Michael, indifference describes it better than dislike.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>I like looking at and appreciate many types, for example fashion photography and street photography, but have no desire to produce photos of that style myself. Like Michael Chang says, it's just preference.</p>

[railphotog]

<p>Street photography doesn't do anything for me. Of course I've not looked at it much because of my lack of interest. I do recall seeing examples many years ago in photo magazines. To me it almost looked like the photographer had the camera around their neck and was shooting off photos at random. Then the photos were presented in the magazines, blurry, not level, peoples' heads cut off, looked like something most would think of as rejects. And here were the magazines descibing all kinds of goodness in the photos. To me it was waaaa? Sort of like some paintings with paint splashed all over the place, and "art lovers" fawning all over them. I just didn't see anything.</p>

<p> </p>

[Mattman944]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I was wondering if it's common to have a general dislike of certain styles of photography."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, dislike and indifference is a real problem when trying to find unbiased judges. Everyone has biases, but a good judge will try to minimize any he/she has.<br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

[will_daniel1]

Thank you, Michael, for introducing the word, "indifference." That should keep the level of vitriol down in the pissing contest that is sure to follow. I admire great portrature, but am indifferent to pregnant belly portraits. I am indifferent to nearly all black and white photos. We live in a world of color, and modern digital cameras shoot in color. Changing color digits to black and white is an enigma to me, just because color is my preference.

[pjmeade]

<blockquote>

<p>Forensic photography will absolutely make you lose your appetite.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some clinical and diagnostic stuff does the same for me, but other than that, perhaps some Dragonised or over done HDR portraits.</p>

<p> </p>

[charles_stobbs3]

<p>I also avoid certain rooms in art museums. And certain radio stations. It simplifies life.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Sure. Any time I see those large, high contrast B&W photos of naked men that museum curators love, I make a bee line to the nearest impressionist exhibit.</p>

[starvy]

<p>I take an avid interest in the human form so portraiture interests me a great deal as well as nudes. I am also very interested in landscape and architecture as well as all aspects of cat photography. However, street photography, when it captures that 'decisive moment' - the moment being subject to interpretation, for me really makes photography alive. The street is a hotbed of activity and I often see the best street photographs to carry out movement or at least indicate towards movement in the frozen frame.<br>

I am not keen on automobiles or airplane show photography.</p>

[wood]

<p>I am indifferent to photos depicting babies petting cats during wedding ceremonies.</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p><em><strong>"...I am indifferent to photos depicting babies petting cats during wedding ceremonies..."</strong></em></p>

<p>...all photographed with the artsy-fartsy tilted horizon. Hate it.<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

[derek_kennedy]

<p>I kind of like dragonised photos if the right photo is used, and the effect is not over done. I understand what HDR can do for us but -usually- the HDR effect is way over done so I tend to disklike HDR photos.</p>

<p>If the HDR photo is done properly, I shouldnt really be able to tell its a HDR image but as I said, they usually are over done.</p>

<p>Any other genre wouldnt even be indifference - those types are just not something Ive done or would normally do such as street photos (im actually pretty shy so I feel uncomfortable doing street photos).</p>

<p>Will - true digital shoot in colour but they also shoot in b&w. Just like any other camera. I actually prefer b&w. If I shoot film, I only shoot in b&w.</p>

[wogears]

<p>DRAGANIZED! Not 'dragon'. Named for <a href="http://andrzejdragan.com/">Andrzej Dragan</a> (q.v.) who used detail enhancements to excellent effect.</p>

[derek_kennedy]

<p>Yeah - I cant spell. I know. I blame the internet.</p>

[art_thomas1]

<p>Perhaps more style than genre, I have no use for overly artsy stuff like solarizing and cross processing. I also often flip TV channels if the movie is shown in the "moody blues". </p>

[pjmeade]

<p>Dragan? THANK YOU</p>

[don_essedi]

Academic art photographs where all the light and life have been sucked out as if by vampires. An MFA is often implicated.

[luis_g]

<p>Basic dislikes?</p>

<p>Look on PN. A large number of people speak very highly about....what <em>they</em> do, and tend to put down everything else. Yawn...</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I like looking at photos of all types and quality in their natural state. I get bored quickly with some types of photos - snapshots for one example - hung in a gallery so's ya know they are Art. They might work OK in books sometimes but not on the wall. Then one day I see something totally cool and have to take everything I just wrote all back. </p>

 

[mark_drutz]

<p>I guess it comes down to what do I not like. I like formal portraits, but I don't enjoy shooting them. I'm not crazy about B&W in general. I have no interest at all in fashion photography. I never liked photographs of bell peppers even though the art critics love them.</p>

<p>As long as we're confessing, I must admit to liking snapshots. I love looking at friend's and family's snapshots. They're honest unpretentious slices of life. It's funny that when they show me their snapshots they'll often say something to the effect that they know that they're not very good, but........ I don't know if they really believe me when I tell them them that I really enjoy looking at them.</p>

[ben_pike]

<p>I'm indifferent to formulaic landscapes as they all look the same to me:<br>

Tripod check,<br>

Velvia check,<br>

Rocks as foreground interest check,<br>

All people out of frame check</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>"... there are probably some folks who don't care much for flowers, birds, landscapes, city views, etc."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some genres, such as these, are just overwhelmingly more overdone than others. Many beginners start with them and never out grow them. The vast majority of camera clubs are flooded with them. Gallery curators and contest judges must be bored to tears. Perhaps that's why some try every trick to be "artsy" and different.</p>

<p>It would be enlightening if there is a statistical analysis of how each genre rank in this regard, starting with PN's photos.</p>