| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2008 02:39:54 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You know... like THIS (nice stock photos Gordon) |
Yup, they are. More meaningless, brightly coloured shots. Meanwhile, this is the picture I would have framed on the wall from my trip to Tuscany. It was the most meaningful shot I took in Italy. The most personally satisfying and the one that expressed the most how I felt there. Other people may or may not like it, but it means the most to me. Just like that water shot above from Tybee Island means so much more to me than most of the other shots I took there.
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 14:43:05. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:43:19 PM · #52 |
Odd factoid while I remember the math - in a current challenge, I'm scoring a 5.2 5.1 +/-. I've scored about 60% higher (6 or better), and 6% lower (4 or 3), the rest (34%) about equal (ie 5). Don't know what that says if anything but thought I'd add numbers to the mix.
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 16:19:52. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:45:24 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
... As to 'clear communication' ... |
Do you have the Cliff Notes to the rest of that post? |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:52:04 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...clear communication - The viewer has some idea of what you're trying to express... |
"Clear" communication may very well be the very thing that resonates with the few and fails the many. The many often mistake the clarity for poetic license or some sort of ambiguous conjecture. We have to be capable of re-cognizing a thing or feeling for what it is before we should jump to conclusions for what it is not. Look at the difference between 'sentiment' and 'feeling'. Many "get" sentiment. Hallmark sells it, and there's not much to it. It is, however, to a profoundly 'feeling' individual no more than a "failure of feeling". When a photographer captures an intimate moment revealing some symptoms of, say, "sorrow", we cannot expect any twenty-year-old to have an epiphany, but should also not fault the photographer for failing to be "clear", no? |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:54:54 PM · #55 |
emphasis added.
Originally posted by Gordon:
... most personally satisfying ... means the most to me. ... means so much more to me ... |
I think you just hit the nail on the head. Individual photos are unique to each viewer. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:55:19 PM · #56 |
I second Gordon in opinion,
Also sometimes I give 1,2 and 3 for pictures off topic, if the topic is sunset, and you find a technically good picture for a mother feeding her baby, calling the picture sunset in his eyes, I would give it (1,2,3) max. It doesn't matter how good it is if it is off topic.
Also when voting, I don't vote compared to my pictures, I vote compared to the pictures in the challange, and to the wawww factor in it.
my 3 cents,
all the best, |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:56:50 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
What your list really describes is what would be considered great graphic design. Something perfect for a commercial client looking to buy images to sell a product. Easy to read message. Clean lines. Simple. Pleasing colour palette. Nothing complex or confusing or requiring thought. Communicates with the majority of viewers... |
Yup, no surprise there. That's exactly what is required in the context of DPChallenge: a topical visual contest with voters expected the scroll through hundreds of images and pick the winners. You aren't going to change anyone's mind, provoke deep thought or cure society's ills with a photo entered here. That's not the purpose of DPC. You have a few seconds (at best) to communicate the assigned topic in an appealing way and demonstrate some photographic prowess, nothing more. Anyone looking for deep, provocative art here would also be well advised to visit a museum. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:59:41 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...Anyone looking for deep, provocative art here would also be well advised to visit a museum. |
I think the best place for such work is in the mix, rather than inna mooseeum. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:05:42 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...Anyone looking for deep, provocative art here would also be well advised to visit a museum. |
I think the best place for such work is in the mix, rather than inna mooseeum. |
You might find such work here, but expecting it is delusional. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:09:38 PM · #60 |
The "popular" photographer shoots and learns what the masses declare to be "good". The "fine art" photographer shoots for himself and declares to the masses "this is good". Personally I think a lot of artists are a bit full of themselves.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:14:49 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "popular" photographer shoots and learns what the masses declare to be "good". The "fine art" photographer shoots for himself and declares to the masses "this is good". Personally I think a lot of artists are a bit full of themselves. |
I would add... Occasionally the "fine art" photographer is recognized by the masses as good. But no amount of him declaring "this is good" to the masses makes it so. And when recognized by the masses as "good", does this diminish his art? |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:15:32 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "popular" photographer shoots and learns what the masses declare to be "good". The "fine art" photographer shoots for himself and declares to the masses "this is good". |
So you think mass appeal is the best you could hope to achieve in your photography ? It's but one goal. Not the be all and end all reason to pick up a camera. Popular just means 'popular' It doesn't say anything about good, bad, meaningful, vapid. Just popular. One of many standards to rate something on (just happens to be the one used here)
Most people hate classical music or the blues. Is it better or worse than Britney Spears or Hannah Montana?
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 15:18:38. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:24:19 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "popular" photographer shoots and learns what the masses declare to be "good". The "fine art" photographer shoots for himself and declares to the masses "this is good". |
So you think mass appeal is the best you could hope to achieve in your photography ? It's but one goal. Not the be all and end all reason to pick up a camera. Popular just means 'popular' It doesn't say anything about good, bad, meaningful, vapid. Just popular. One of many standards to rate something on (just happens to be the one used here)
Most people hate classical music or the blues. Is it better or worse than Britney Spears or Hannah Montana? |
I feel myself being compared to a preteen. ;)
Depends on who you ask... It's music made for two different audiences. Classical and blues composers are targeting their audience just like BS or HM. Asking which type will stand the test of time is rhetorical. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:27:37 PM · #64 |
What an interesting, thoughtful and thought provoking thread.
I recently got this comment "Did not look promising from the thumbnail, but ..." and the comment goes on to make the commentors point.
I know some voters who look at the thumbnails and vote only on a subset of the images. IMHO the thumbnails are just too small to make a voting decision - even the decision not to vote. Maybe I can spot "eye candy" in a thumbnail because of its color, or simplicty, or relative size of the subject. But only by opening it will you be able to see the richness of an image and reveal the character of a photo (assuming richness or character are there in the first place of course). |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:27:59 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Depends on who you ask... It's music made for two different audiences. |
Exactly. But you can't define which one is 'better' by which one is popular or not. Popular is just one measure, not the best or worst or only standard to use.
Am I supposed to like something, just because everyone else does ? Do you like everything, just because everyone else does ? Probably not - you have your own tastes, interests, things you love, things you hate. Just like everyone else, but probably totally different.
So why shouldn't some people love photographs that other people hate ? There will always be that middle ground of stuff that we can all agree is adequately good and quickly dismiss. But the stuff that really sticks in your head is probably stuff that I'd hate and vice-versa.
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 15:30:56. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:29:07 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "popular" photographer shoots and learns what the masses declare to be "good". The "fine art" photographer shoots for himself and declares to the masses "this is good". |
So you think mass appeal is the best you could hope to achieve in your photography ? It's but one goal. Not the be all and end all reason to pick up a camera. Popular just means 'popular' It doesn't say anything about good, bad, meaningful, vapid. Just popular. One of many standards to rate something on (just happens to be the one used here)
Most people hate classical music or the blues. Is it better or worse than Britney Spears or Hannah Montana? |
One must recall that "classical music" has a following centuries after their composers die. So would you say that is unpopular? I doubt Britney is even going to be known 50 years from now. So yes, I'd say classical is a) more popular and b) more enduring when you look at the big picture.
My statement, of course, is a bit simplistic. Porn is quite popular but I'd hardly say it's "good". But I just scratch my head at the people who go around dismissing anything popular as "eye candy" while struggling to declare their own work as superior based on depth or meaning or whatever. Certainly there are the artists who shoot for themselves and are happy when they connect with those few people who share their vision. But the instant they start looking down their nose at people who reach a wider audience they lose me.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:32:16 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My statement, of course, is a bit simplistic. Porn is quite popular but I'd hardly say it's "good". But I just scratch my head at the people who go around dismissing anything popular as "eye candy" while struggling to declare their own work as superior based on depth or meaning or whatever. Certainly there are the artists who shoot for themselves and are happy when they connect with those few people who share their vision. But the instant they start looking down their nose at people who reach a wider audience they lose me. |
Yet your two contributions in this thread appear to be looking down your nose at them - so you've got the moral high ground now, then ? :) |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:33:39 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
So you think mass appeal is the best you could hope to achieve in your photography ? It's but one goal. Not the be all and end all reason to pick up a camera. Popular just means 'popular' It doesn't say anything about good, bad, meaningful, vapid. Just popular. One of many standards to rate something on (just happens to be the one used here) |
Popular is meaningful to many. Something that's meaningful to few isn't likely go far on a public site. Yes, mass appeal is only one goal, but it's a goal that doesn't result in sitting at home privately admiring one's own work. :-/ |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:34:07 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by mpeters:
Depends on who you ask... It's music made for two different audiences. |
Exactly. But you can't define which one is 'better' by which one is popular or not. Popular is just one measure, not the best or worst or only standard to use. |
Agreed, popular is just one way... Which is 'better' ultimately comes down to personal opinion--which can't be used as a measure by anyone but myself. I can't expect someone to agree with me just because I opened my mouth. Which is why movie critics, art critics, and the like can be frustrating--ultimately they are only offering their opinion. They're neither right or wrong. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:35:31 PM · #70 |
would you say it's a bad idea to encourage different styles (ie - styles not usually seen here on dpc)? It's possible to encourage change without saying that what exists is bad. Change doesn't have to imply a condescending attitude.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But the instant they start looking down their nose at people who reach a wider audience they lose me. |
|
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:35:53 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "popular" photographer shoots and learns what the masses declare to be "good". The "fine art" photographer shoots for himself and declares to the masses "this is good". |
So you think mass appeal is the best you could hope to achieve in your photography ? It's but one goal. Not the be all and end all reason to pick up a camera. Popular just means 'popular' It doesn't say anything about good, bad, meaningful, vapid. Just popular. One of many standards to rate something on (just happens to be the one used here)
Most people hate classical music or the blues. Is it better or worse than Britney Spears or Hannah Montana? |
One must recall that "classical music" has a following centuries after their composers die. So would you say that is unpopular? I doubt Britney is even going to be known 50 years from now. So yes, I'd say classical is a) more popular and b) more enduring when you look at the big picture.
My statement, of course, is a bit simplistic. Porn is quite popular but I'd hardly say it's "good". But I just scratch my head at the people who go around dismissing anything popular as "eye candy" while struggling to declare their own work as superior based on depth or meaning or whatever. Certainly there are the artists who shoot for themselves and are happy when they connect with those few people who share their vision. But the instant they start looking down their nose at people who reach a wider audience they lose me. |
Hey Doc, would it be safe to say that this is not the site for anyone trying to create thought provoking images? The scores seem to imply that. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:36:31 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Most people hate classical music or the blues. |
I'm sure Mozart and Bach were the Britney Spears of their time. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:37:02 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yes, mass appeal is only one goal, but it's a goal that doesn't result in sitting at home privately admiring one's own work. :-/ |
Yup, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it is only one goal. There are plenty of other interesting and equally valid reasons to pick up a camera. But you seem to think that mass appeal is the only one that makes sense.
Originally posted by scalvert:
I WANT to appeal to the masses because, really, what's the point of having a photo that most people aren't interested in seeing? :-/ |
and that's fine and all. All I'm trying to point out is that other people don't need to conform to your idea of success. That's up to you, not everyone else.
Personally I got bored of trying to shoot to make other people happy. I started to try to take pictures to make me happy. It's a whole lot more satisfying for me. I feel like I'm actually doing something I enjoy, rather than trying to do something you'll enjoy.
That's just me. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that you saying I'm wrong, is wrong.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Popular is meaningful to many. Something that's meaningful to few isn't likely go far on a public site. |
To that I say 'so what' ? Does it have to go far on a public site to be good, or interesting, or worthwhile ? It's just not the goal for everyone.
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 15:38:30. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:38:12 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Popular is meaningful to many. Something that's meaningful to few isn't likely go far on a public site. Yes, mass appeal is only one goal, but it's a goal that doesn't result in sitting at home privately admiring one's own work. :-/ |
Ouch. My best audience is apparently me. I cannot do popular. I have tried, and I'm not skilled enough to do it. Yet I still like to take pictures and share them. Hopefully I can still do this despite the lack of popular appeal? (Yeah, I know you didn't mean that those of us who can't shoot well should leave... just a side point is all, and I fully expect to be Yanko'd.) :-) |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:42:05 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Popular is meaningful to many. Something that's meaningful to few isn't likely go far on a public site. Yes, mass appeal is only one goal, but it's a goal that doesn't result in sitting at home privately admiring one's own work. :-/ |
Ouch. My best audience is apparently me. I cannot do popular. I have tried, and I'm not skilled enough to do it. Yet I still like to take pictures and share them. Hopefully I can still do this despite the lack of popular appeal? (Yeah, I know you didn't mean that those of us who can't shoot well should leave... just a side point is all, and I fully expect to be Yanko'd.) :-) |
Deb, your photos are a classic case of what I find intriguing-- Maybe not pretty, but fresh, alternative looks at life. I find it hard to make those kind of images so I appreciate ones who do. |
|
