Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Untitled Photograph  (Read 2485 times)
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2013, 11:42:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Expressing yourself is all very well.

Communicating with others is strictly a subset of expressing yourself, it's expressing yourself using shared modes of expression. If you're not much interested in that, then the world of possibilities certainly agllalalaflalla blah frongnap schpeEEE! FLOOOOO! FLOOO!! Jangnaps carsint ba soy begnit, exfalla fo bashop nah. Floo? Shabnazap.


I'm happy to see I have your permission to express myself. I was beginning to wonder here. This forum is a communications mechanism. When I post a photograph here, I am sending out the communication for whomever wants to receive it. How can you imply I am not interested in "communicating with others"? My interest is directly expressed by the act of posting it here. Certainly, I can't make someone view a photograph. I am deeply interested in communicating with others, which is why I write in the language of this forum - English.  I don't type random letters, do I? I am receiving messages back from other people, so I have to assume they are not being blocked from my communications in any way.

What is the "shared mode of expression?" A mode is a method. Our shared method of expression is to post photographs on the Internet. Since everyone is familiar with what a photograph is, the mode is successful and common. I doubt you meant to say we have to "share the same expression" - that would be laughable on the surface.

Now, maybe you mean my photographs don't communicate anything? Maybe you mean you don't understand them? Maybe you are claiming no one understands them? It's hard to tell what you are claiming when you type random letters. But, if you meant "no one understand them," I'd like to suggest that what you might mean is "not everyone understands them." And that could be very true. Not everyone understands certain plays, or poems or novels, or paintings, or sculptures, or religious doctrines either. Does this mean that those artists have "no interest in communicating?"

In the end, my read on your many posts involving me, is that you want a certain conformity of thought and expression. That was absolutely paramount in the "street photography" thread. It must contain thus and so on, or it isn't this or that. That's a drive to conformity. I don't find it useful in art. If you find conformity of expression useful, I say good for you, carry on as you will and prefer in your works. But explain how you think it is best to make others conform? What is driving that big push here?

Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2013, 11:59:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Shoboz. Blat.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4053



« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2013, 01:31:47 PM »
ReplyReply

The word 'just' in "just a photograph," as I wrote it earlier, wasn't intended to mean "merely," as it appears you might be suggesting here by the use of the words "minimal standards." It would be better to read that as, "only a photograph". Which means it is not acting as an instrument of documentation, or evidence or narrative, or other purpose. It contains it's own purpose. 

Leaving aside the errors in punctuation and grammar, what on earth is this supposed to mean? It's English, in the sense that the words are recognisable by an English speaker, but they don't form a coherent whole. The supposed distinction it draws between "just", "merely" and "only" is simply false.

Are you a fan of Chomsky, perhaps? Colourless green ideas sleep furiously?

Jeremy
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 15, 2013, 01:38:53 PM »
ReplyReply

We are simply not sophisticated enough to understand RG's ideas. It's a shame, but I am resigned to struggling through life a dunce.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2013, 02:07:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Leaving aside the errors in punctuation and grammar, what on earth is this supposed to mean? It's English, in the sense that the words are recognisable by an English speaker, but they don't form a coherent whole. The supposed distinction it draws between "just", "merely" and "only" is simply false.

Are you a fan of Chomsky, perhaps? Colourless green ideas sleep furiously?

Jeremy
I didn't see anything in your post regarding the subject of photography, which is my interest, and my purpose for being here. It looks like you have proposed a very intense question along with some claims about language, and with references to linguists of note. This branch of the forum is called "user critiques." I really don't know if there is a section for "Grammar and Language" or not.

I do the best I can to put language in service to my photographic interests here, but at the end of the day, my interest is photography, not so much language, even though I am sure that's fascinating too.

There's an old Eastern proverb about mistaking the finger which points to the moon, for the moon itself. Do you know of it? 

Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2013, 04:53:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I think what is going on here is that Lula's immune system is working to expel what it regards as a foreign organism. I can see what it means - coherent thought is not the organism's strong point, and neither is brevity of expression - but after reading all the weighty denunciation, I looked again at the photograph and still quite like it. Why? For the same sort of "moment in time" reasons as I remember quite liking a shot of a rock and some grass by I think it was amolitor, and which was similarly denounced. Nothing in particular is going on. I feel mild curiosity. Is the cabby happy with his life, etcetera? No particular hook, I won't remember it. I quite like the colors. Faint praise, sure, but damning with it only if you want to jump on top of anything that isn't a masterpiece, and in that case, who should scape hanging?
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8065



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2013, 06:54:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I quite like the colors. Faint praise, sure, but damning with it only if you want to jump on top of anything that isn't a masterpiece, and in that case, who should scape hanging?
I don't especially like the colors. I wonder if it would be better in black and white. Or perhaps just in black. Or white.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6027


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2013, 08:29:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I think what is going on here is that Lula's immune system is working to expel what it regards as a foreign organism...

Whatever we might have against (or for) RedwoodGuy's style of forum communication, it should not reflect, and i think it doesn't, on our opinion about his pictures. I personally did not like most pictures he posted so far, but when I did like one, I clearly said so.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6027


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2013, 08:35:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't especially like the colors. I wonder if it would be better in black and white. Or perhaps just in black. Or white.

This is brilliant!  Grin

P.S. I am not saying it out of malice toward RedwoodGuy, but in appreciation of an intelligent rhetorical device.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2013, 09:18:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Whatever we might have against (or for) RedwoodGuy's style of forum communication, it should not reflect, and i think it doesn't, on our opinion about his pictures.

Indeed, that was my point, not directed at you personally but rather at what I saw as a tendency in the thread as a whole to bring sledgehammers to bear on the cracking of a nut.

Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8065



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2013, 10:36:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Whatever we might have against (or for) RedwoodGuy's style of forum communication, it should not reflect, and i think it doesn't, on our opinion about his pictures.
I agree.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2013, 12:39:16 AM »
ReplyReply


Indeed, that was my point, not directed at you personally but rather at what I saw as a tendency in the thread as a whole to bring sledgehammers to bear on the cracking of a nut.



That's one reading of this thread. Another more honest summary would be obtained by looking at the actual objectionable comments as posted. Let's remember this is a "user critique" forum. Critique is a style of analysis, and differs from criticism in important ways (http://www.beedictionary.com/common-errors/critique_vs_criticize).  And of course it differs from personal ridicule too, right?

Here are the comments:

1. I do not get it either. How is it "untitled", when the title says "Attached"?

  
2. You guys fell for it. He posted this nothing snapshot just to see if anyone here would take it seriously. Pretty funny, RG. And you actually got some takers.

3. You must have had sense of humor surgically removed at birth?

4. I, too, didn't get it at first. But with the explanation, I think I do now. It seems to be sort of a Jerry Seinfeld photo: A photo about Nothing.

5. The lesser the photograph, the more bloated the justification?

6. In which case, everything and anything that comes out of a camera is "just a photograph." Can't wait to see further examples.

7. Communicating with others is strictly a subset of expressing yourself, it's expressing yourself using shared modes of expression. If you're not much interested in that, then the world of possibilities certainly agllalalaflalla blah frongnap schpeEEE! FLOOOOO! FLOOO!! Jangnaps carsint ba soy begnit, exfalla fo bashop nah. Floo? Shabnazap.

8. hoboz. Blat.

9. Leaving aside the errors in punctuation and grammar, what on earth is this supposed to mean? It's English, in the sense that the words are recognisable by an English speaker, but they don't form a coherent whole. The supposed distinction it draws between "just", "merely" and "only" is simply false.

Are you a fan of Chomsky, perhaps? Colourless green ideas sleep furiously?

10. We are simply not sophisticated enough to understand RG's ideas. It's a shame, but I am resigned to struggling through life a dunce.

11. coherent thought is not the organism's strong point

12. I don't especially like the colors. I wonder if it would be better in black and white. Or perhaps just in black. Or white.
13. "Brilliant!"

Here's what an honest assessment of this thread reveals: None of these comments are a critique of the photograph. More than half are comments expressly intended to insult the poster. The rest are intended as disguised insults. Three of them are not even about photography. This collection of comments is made from an originating post which contained one word and one photograph. So no, this is not a case of 'sledgehammers brought to bear on a nut,' as you have said here. It is something rather different in tenor, tone and intention.

This is not the meaning of critique. Most of it doesn't even conform to criticism. This isn't even about photography.  It's called personal ridicule. Your summary of this is entirely in error. It's not all that unusual for groups like this to totally disrespect other people in this way. So that wasn't surprising. What I did find very remarkable here was the total disrespect for photography. This form of berating photographic ideas isn't even found on FLICKR groups that are often filled with teenagers.  
 
Now, I'll bet someone is going to say I brought this on myself. Let me post this - my first introduction to the guy named RSL. This was on Feb 3, after I had enthusiastically posted my first few photographs in the "real street photography thread."

RSL: "Guy, Sorry, but what I see is one high-school type snapshot and two environmental portraits -- no street photography. You need to go to a library or bookstore, pick up a book of Cartier-Bresson's photographs, and study it."  

Welcome to LuLa. Yes, very sophisticated bunch here. I evaluate people's talent and integrity by what they post, and nothing but their posts. If this is how you want to look on the pages here - have at it. But, I am not going anywhere.


« Last Edit: February 16, 2013, 01:10:19 AM by RedwoodGuy » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6027


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2013, 01:16:32 AM »
ReplyReply

You forgot reply #16: "It's a crap shot."

Or perhaps you do consider it the only genuine critique, thus did not include it in your laundry list?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 16, 2013, 06:34:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I posted a genuine critique, which you replied to in what I understood to be a pretty dismissive tone. You said, essentially, that I wasn't sophisticated enough to understand your photograph.

This isn't a strategy likely to get a lot more serious critique out of people. It's a strategy pretty much guaranteed to get you roundly mocked.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #34 on: February 16, 2013, 08:14:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I posted a genuine critique, which you replied to in what I understood to be a pretty dismissive tone. You said, essentially, that I wasn't sophisticated enough to understand your photograph.

This isn't a strategy likely to get a lot more serious critique out of people. It's a strategy pretty much guaranteed to get you roundly mocked.

There's no reason here for you to be misleading with these innocent claims of offense about my tone. You are one of the nastiest toned individuals I've met on any forum, next to RSL. Your comments to me have been foul-toned since you started with them. And if I want to be dismissive of your nasty gibberish, I will be so at my pleasure.

I am under no obligation to sit back here and take nastygrams from you or anyone else. If you are not able to follow such simple arguments about art and photography as you attempted to engage here yesterday before stomping off into gibberishland, then maybe you really are too unsophisticated to keep up. You've said it twice now, and who would know better than you?

I found nothing insightful or informative in your so-called critique. It was carelessly constructed and salted with what you assumed would be a great put down, but still "look like" a legitimate critique (Eddie Haskell ring a bell?). When I saw right through it, you then embarrassed your self trying to make some kind of an argument about self expression that was laughable, just laughable. Even I felt sorry for you. And now you want to complain about my tone?

So let's get it said here. I do not take nasty toned rubbish from you or anyone else because "you were here first." I will respond in a suitable way - as I did yesterday. And, if you are going to engage me in some argument, you better have all your ducks lined up, because I do not acquiesce to blustering poseurs and pompous blowhards who simply don't have the goods. Your photography, as best I can tell, is common and banal, and therefore your posing as an expert in the art of photography is just preposterous. I don't mind leaving you alone to do what you do here. I'll stay very clear of you. But do not think I will put up with your nasty tone for any reason. On your best day you are not ready for me, so my advice is accept the offer to steer clear, and let it be.
Logged
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #35 on: February 16, 2013, 08:19:30 AM »
ReplyReply

You forgot reply #16: "It's a crap shot."

Or perhaps you do consider it the only genuine critique, thus did not include it in your laundry list?
Really? You're going to start this again? My advice? Use this time to go out and improve your photography and don't waste it here trying to insult me. I know you think you are clever and peevish in that little bad boy way, but learn to know when you've crossed over into being a bore. A little bit of your crap goes a long, long way.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2013, 08:44:04 AM by RedwoodGuy » Logged
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2013, 08:53:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I think what is going on here is that Lula's immune system is working to expel what it regards as a foreign organism. I can see what it means - coherent thought is not the organism's strong point, and neither is brevity of expression - etc...etc....
I know you thought that was ever so clever, didn't you? You enjoy thinking you are above it all. But in the end, it's just another nasty insult for no reason. I think you were also the one to be offended by my "tone" the other day, no? Explain to me why I owe you deference? 

Logged
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2013, 09:25:40 AM »
ReplyReply

You guys fell for it. He posted this nothing snapshot just to see if anyone here would take it seriously. Pretty funny, RG. And you actually got some takers.
Actually, the joke is on you RSL, but we can get to that later. I am giving you fair warning to steer clear of me, lest I have to school you again about contemporary street photography, or the next subject you attempt to bluff and bluster your way through with me. I owe you no deference here, and you will be treated as you treat me. (I don't care if you are 120 years old. The older you are, the less excuse you have for being an ass.)

You're quite welcome to not like my photography - that's part of a group dynamic. You are also quite welcome to comment on it as you please or not. You are not however, welcome to insult me using that as an excuse. Are we perfectly clear on this? I have looked at your photography too, and I am sorry to report that I was not in any way impressed by it. But I didn't consider that a reason to hector, hound and insult you, did I? You are accustomed to bullying your way around this forum, I can see that from your history. How that has become acceptable, I do not know, and that's not really my business. But, it will not be acceptable to me henceforth. Mind your manners, or discover them, whichever fits you best.   
Logged
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2013, 09:32:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Just to expand on my previous comment.  No matter the taxonomy, it's still a crap shot.
I have no objection to your objections here. No one has to like a photograph, and comments are always welcome. But please take note of your tone here - because when that tone comes back to bite you sometime in the future, I don't want to see you crying and whining that I used a dismissive tone or some other nonsense.  When you sling shite like this, you better have a suit of armor on, ok? Are we clear on what I am saying to you?
Logged
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #39 on: February 16, 2013, 09:37:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I think I've made myself clear enough to all. Bad manners will be met in kind. I owe no person here special deference. Everyone is entitled to like and dislike whatever photography they choose, and make whatever comments they like. But comments that are simply nasty hectoring, or personality attacks, will not be tolerated by me. You are all old geezers and should by now have developed some level of decorum. Civility is not hard to understand. I seek nothing beyond that.

Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad