| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/10/2012 02:28:26 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by rooum:
To move from literary and musical comparisons to a cinematic one. I've got no interest at all in Avatar. It may the highest grossing, most expensive film of all time and have state of the art special effects but i think it is trite, boringly simplistic, emotionally knee-jerk junk. I can, however, watch David Lynch films such as Inland Empire or Lost Highway endlessly and i still don't know what they are about. Or, rather, i have my own interpretations of what they are about but those might change on each viewing and i imagine are completely different to what David Lynch meant in the first place anyway. That's how i like all art/literature/film really.
Saying that though, i have read, and still do read, many Superman comics and they are often amazingly complex and fascinating (Grant Morrison) or beautifully emotional and moving (Alan Moore) and Britney is just good POP really. Damn fine POP! |
interesting, so its possible that we could all like/dislike different stuff, complex or not? |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 02:29:48 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
interesting, so its possible that we could all like/dislike different stuff, complex or not? |
Amazingly enough, YES! :-) |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 02:30:06 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
interesting, so its possible that we could all like/dislike different stuff, complex or not? |
No way! That would be too sensible and take away half the fun experience of DPC! |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 02:41:09 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Spork99:
There's a reason Ulysses is highly regarded, but you can't be a lazy reader or you'll come away as you did, thinking it's junk. |
There are other reasons other than lazy to think that book is junk. But you lazily attributed that reason with why I didn't like it.
Originally posted by Spork99:
That the photographer has to spoon feed the lazy viewer is exactly what you're saying. Maybe a certain portion of the viewers, yourself for example, are lazy and don't want to think about what they're looking at, but just see the pretty picture. Eye candy will come and go, but so much of it is just a technical exercise without any real meaning or even an attempt at one. Clearly not everyone is so lazy and they are willing to use their minds to look beyond the literal. |
You have no clue whether I'm lazy or not. I said you have to cater to the audience, and they could be lazy amongst many other things. Maybe you should read what I wrote instead of lazily glancing over the words before responding. |
Your posts indicate a preference for laziness both in reading and looking at art. It's OK, but you're missing out. I'm lazy when it comes to appreciating brussel sprouts or broccoli. The people who work hard to grow them and get them into the produce section of the market might wish I wasn't so dismissive of their work, but I am.
Also, if you weren't lazy, you'd notice that I said readers of Ulysses can't be a lazy reader and not expect to think the book is junk as you did. I simply suggested that the path of the lazy reader would lead to the same opinion of the book you professed. I said nothing about how you personally got to that conclusion. You simply need to understand the difference between the general "you" meaning a general person and the specific "you" meaning you personally. Let me fix it so you don't have to work so hard:
Originally posted by Spork99:
There's a reason Ulysses is highly regarded, but a reader of the book can't be a lazy reader or the reader will come away as you did, thinking it's junk. |
(FYI- the changes are in bold)
Message edited by author 2012-07-10 15:13:57. |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 04:13:54 PM · #80 |
One issue with art and "meaning" isn't so much that the observer is lazy and, thus, the problem is on the observer's side, it's that one could literally take any thing or object and infuse it with complexity and meaning. I enjoy art, but I can find myself rolling my eyes a bit when people fawn over something in a supercilious tone.
Here's the rub, Ulysses is rubbish to Venser. In the relativistic world of art/literary criticism his opinion is as valid as another. You can't objectively counter Venser and say, "no, you are wrong and just lazy." You can only do that subjectively (which is entirely valid).
There is no art committee that decides if your opinion is valid or not. If Thomas Kincaid moves you and you find meaning and beauty in his work, then the people who look down upon you are in the wrong, not you. Your own opinion about art can never be incorrect, it can only be in a minority.
Message edited by author 2012-07-10 16:15:44. |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 04:22:22 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One issue with art and "meaning" isn't so much that the observer is lazy and, thus, the problem is on the observer's side, it's that one could literally take any thing or object and infuse it with complexity and meaning. I enjoy art, but I can find myself rolling my eyes a bit when people fawn over something in a supercilious tone.
Here's the rub, Ulysses is rubbish to Venser. In the relativistic world of art/literary criticism his opinion is as valid as another. You can't objectively counter Venser and say, "no, you are wrong and just lazy." You can only do that subjectively (which is entirely valid).
There is no art committee that decides if your opinion is valid or not. If Thomas Kincaid moves you and you find meaning and beauty in his work, then the people who look down upon you are in the wrong, not you. Your own opinion about art can never be incorrect, it can only be in a minority. |
Well said. |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 04:24:47 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One issue with art and "meaning" isn't so much that the observer is lazy and, thus, the problem is on the observer's side, it's that one could literally take any thing or object and infuse it with complexity and meaning. I enjoy art, but I can find myself rolling my eyes a bit when people fawn over something in a supercilious tone.
Here's the rub, Ulysses is rubbish to Venser. In the relativistic world of art/literary criticism his opinion is as valid as another. You can't objectively counter Venser and say, "no, you are wrong and just lazy." You can only do that subjectively (which is entirely valid).
There is no art committee that decides if your opinion is valid or not. If Thomas Kincaid moves you and you find meaning and beauty in his work, then the people who look down upon you are in the wrong, not you. Your own opinion about art can never be incorrect, it can only be in a minority. |
That's fine and of course people are entitled to their opinion, but a person too lazy to look for meaning in something will, of course, never find it. That doesn't mean it's not there for those who aren't lazy.
If I hear there's a million dollars buried in my back yard, but I'm too lazy to get off my couch, get a shovel and dig a few holes, I'll never find it. |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 04:38:23 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One issue with art and "meaning" isn't so much that the observer is lazy and, thus, the problem is on the observer's side, it's that one could literally take any thing or object and infuse it with complexity and meaning. I enjoy art, but I can find myself rolling my eyes a bit when people fawn over something in a supercilious tone.
Here's the rub, Ulysses is rubbish to Venser. In the relativistic world of art/literary criticism his opinion is as valid as another. You can't objectively counter Venser and say, "no, you are wrong and just lazy." You can only do that subjectively (which is entirely valid).
There is no art committee that decides if your opinion is valid or not. If Thomas Kincaid moves you and you find meaning and beauty in his work, then the people who look down upon you are in the wrong, not you. Your own opinion about art can never be incorrect, it can only be in a minority. |
That's fine and of course people are entitled to their opinion, but a person too lazy to look for meaning in something will, of course, never find it. That doesn't mean it's not there for those who aren't lazy.
If I hear there's a million dollars buried in my back yard, but I'm too lazy to get off my couch, get a shovel and dig a few holes, I'll never find it. |
But what if someone just tells you there is a million dollars in the backyard. You could dig forever and never find it. Just saying something is art, doesn't make it so. There must be appreciation. If some appreciate a photo while others do not, that is fine. That is why some people are more popular than others and why some like one genre while others like another. In my opinion, however, it is unfair to label as lazy all those who fail to see things your way.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2012 04:44:09 PM · #84 |
so by this thread of logic, any "contest" such as our DPC contests, is a popularity contest and not an objective test of true merit, whether by open vote or jury. And that seems about right.
But you can't be suggesting that all art is totally subjective and has no objective criteria for criticism at all, even if it is relative to the time, place, era, etc?
(That would be akin to suggesting, for instance, that Motley Crue could carry the Jockstraps, of Rush, or the Police)
Message edited by author 2012-07-10 16:45:50. |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 04:59:58 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by mike_311:
We are assuming the artist is making the art actually set out to create a particular image as opposed to digging through a pile of photos taken and saying oooh, i bet i can get a posthumous with this one. lets apply some blur and color effect.
unfortunately i think that the case for most of the "artsy" submissions. |
Really? I've never got that impression at all. It's certainly not what i do and i've got a few PR's, some blurry, some not, some colourful, some black and white. Most of my favourite photographers and artists on DPC have numerous PR's.  pointandshoot,  bspurgeon,  whiteroom, jmritz, jagar, odriew to name just a few. All strike me as very considered and thoughtful artists who spend a lot of time with their photography and have developed their own way of looking at the world and translating that into their art. If they've got anything in common it is probably a lack of ambition over ribbons of any sort whether they are normal ones or PR's. It just so happens that a small number of people here enjoy what they do and like to celebrate that with PR's
The scare quotes around the slightly derogatory word artsy often pops up on DPC and it usually comes from those people who, for some reason, can't get their head around the fact that some people are drawn to making and viewing less traditional types of images. The same as those people who accuse others of being pretentious for liking certain more avant grade types of music or film say. It's a very lazy accusation really Mike. |
I believe all of my Posthumous ribbons have come on sharp images. Same goes for my DPC ribbons. Sharp is easy. Blurry is hard. Sharp never gets confused for a mistake. Although in many instances it should be.
Message edited by author 2012-07-10 17:10:20. |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 05:05:53 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by JiaBob:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One issue with art and "meaning" isn't so much that the observer is lazy and, thus, the problem is on the observer's side, it's that one could literally take any thing or object and infuse it with complexity and meaning. I enjoy art, but I can find myself rolling my eyes a bit when people fawn over something in a supercilious tone.
Here's the rub, Ulysses is rubbish to Venser. In the relativistic world of art/literary criticism his opinion is as valid as another. You can't objectively counter Venser and say, "no, you are wrong and just lazy." You can only do that subjectively (which is entirely valid).
There is no art committee that decides if your opinion is valid or not. If Thomas Kincaid moves you and you find meaning and beauty in his work, then the people who look down upon you are in the wrong, not you. Your own opinion about art can never be incorrect, it can only be in a minority. |
That's fine and of course people are entitled to their opinion, but a person too lazy to look for meaning in something will, of course, never find it. That doesn't mean it's not there for those who aren't lazy.
If I hear there's a million dollars buried in my back yard, but I'm too lazy to get off my couch, get a shovel and dig a few holes, I'll never find it. |
But what if someone just tells you there is a million dollars in the backyard. You could dig forever and never find it. Just saying something is art, doesn't make it so. There must be appreciation. If some appreciate a photo while others do not, that is fine. That is why some people are more popular than others and why some like one genre while others like another. In my opinion, however, it is unfair to label as lazy all those who fail to see things your way. |
I'm not labeling those who don't agree with my opinion as lazy, only those who are unwilling to look. |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 06:06:34 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm not labeling those who don't agree with my opinion as lazy, only those who are unwilling to look. |
I think calling it a lazy approach is missing the real point. Some art needs so much context to be enjoyed that it is out of the reach of people who don't study it.
My musician friends hate some of the music I enjoy because they see faults and lack of complexity that isn't apparent to me. Their years of study have given them a keener sense of timing and chord structure that I can not hear. Their history of listening can give them delights ("Oh what a clever shift into the diatonic scale there!") and annoyances ("He stole that whole passage from Charlie Parker, and played it badly") that sail right past my ear. I'm not a lazy listener, I'm just not well educated. So I don't get some of their stuff that makes them delighted, and I enjoy stuff that makes them cringe. And my awareness of my ignorance does not keep mey from liking it anyway.
Message edited by author 2012-07-10 18:07:56. |
|
|
|
07/10/2012 09:38:51 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm not labeling those who don't agree with my opinion as lazy, only those who are unwilling to look. |
I think calling it a lazy approach is missing the real point. Some art needs so much context to be enjoyed that it is out of the reach of people who don't study it.
My musician friends hate some of the music I enjoy because they see faults and lack of complexity that isn't apparent to me. Their years of study have given them a keener sense of timing and chord structure that I can not hear. Their history of listening can give them delights ("Oh what a clever shift into the diatonic scale there!") and annoyances ("He stole that whole passage from Charlie Parker, and played it badly") that sail right past my ear. I'm not a lazy listener, I'm just not well educated. So I don't get some of their stuff that makes them delighted, and I enjoy stuff that makes them cringe. And my awareness of my ignorance does not keep mey from liking it anyway. |
Acknowledging that there is complexity in some art that is beyond your personal understanding of it is not laziness. Dismissing it as "junk" or "crap" without trying to understand it or acknowledging that something is there you don't get is laziness. or worse. |
|
|
|
09/05/2013 10:36:56 AM · #89 |
| Wow really great job. I like it. |
|
|
|
09/05/2013 01:03:05 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Stoik:
Wow really great job. I like it. |
What did you like about it? |
|
|
|
09/05/2013 03:18:00 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Post your comments, questions, and reviews for...
'3 Steps for Voting on Artistic Photographs'
by posthumous
View this tutorial here. |
Another Approach |
|
|
|
09/05/2013 03:55:00 PM · #92 |
fantastic reference doc. one of the people who was used as the basis for Mr. Keating, Robin William's character in Dead Poet's Society was Samuel Pickering, a Southern Gentleman and an English professor of mine at Uconn.(creative writing, and short story.)
I am thinking that when it comes to DPC voting, the ship has sailed on ripping out the introduction. |
|
|
|
04/29/2016 02:32:03 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Tiny:
Wow ! some of you guys read books as well . |
(Nods head vigorously)
More than you might think :-) Some of us even TEACH 'em... |
I love art in most all mediums. Some of the DPCrs truly are artist.
Message edited by author 2017-11-17 02:37:03. |
|
|
|
04/29/2016 02:32:05 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Tiny:
Wow ! some of you guys read books as well . |
(Nods head vigorously)
More than you might think :-) Some of us even TEACH 'em... |
Message edited by author 2017-11-17 02:34:56. |
|
|
|
04/29/2016 02:36:15 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Cyrilda:
I had a teacher like you in school. She eventually lost her license for child abuse. :-) |
Eh? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/03/2025 01:23:23 PM EDT.
