How old would you expect this person to be?
For questions and advice about interpersonal relationships with friends, housemates, family and work colleagues.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
-
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Location: Liverpool
- Posts: 709
Re: How old would you expect this person to be?Sounds about normal for facebook.(Original post by Carrby)
Okay, she's actually got her 18th birthday in a few days I think
Does anybody else think it's strange? I'd have said stuff like this when i was 14/15 but I'd never bash my parents on facebook now or do the thing where you complain about someone without saying their name but you still make it really obvious who it is. Oh and the relationship stuff, I can't believe people do that past 16, it's really weird in my opinion. What do you think? -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,142
Re: How old would you expect this person to be?... If anything that supports my argument. A lot of people associate hoodies with anti-social behaviour, despite the fact that not everyone who wears hoodies are thugs. And in the same way, the term "photography" has its own association.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
People associate those who wear hoodies as being thugs, doesnt make it true. People assosicate being pale with being deficient, doesn't mean they are
Sane thing here, doesn't have to be good. To think that only good photos can be considered photography probably shows some sort of superiority complex
I don't have a superiority complex. I'm just stating a fact. Photography is an artform. Art = "works produced by such skill and imagination"; "quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance"; "expression or application of human creative skill and imagination". Emphasis on skill, expression, quality, beautiful, of more than ordinary significance. If art has all these connotations of beauty and quality, and photography is an artform, then yes I think it's reasonable to expect something entitled "photography" to contain "good" photos.
I'm not basing my view soley on Instagram and Facebook... There are many different places where people claim to be "photographers", Facebook is just one of them..!(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
Nonsense, if you have good work, it'll get noticed. You having dodgy instagram friends doesn't mean your work doesn't exist or is less likely to be noticed. Im sure I can say if people are going through your photos, it's mainly because they're bored or they like you etc. does posting a 'good' photo, not promote your album?. I doubt people will take it as seriously as you are. You make it sound like good photographers are pebbles buried in a vast beach full of sand. If they are good, they will get noticed. Ive got a lot of friends that are **** in my opinion yet I can differentiate those who have at least a bit of skill. the damn people post new pics and I notice them... Seeing some crap doesn't make me less likely to see it
In my personal experience, based on my own Facebook account, there are LOTS of "photography" albums, 9/10 of which do not deserve to be called "photography", in my opinion, due to the fact that very little actual skill etc is involved. So when I see a new photography album posted by someone I don't know well, I'm less likely to click on it. So in my own experience yes, it makes me less likely to see potentially good photos.
Replace Facebook/Internet with "library" and photography with "books". Imagine you are in that library. It's filled with books. 9/10 are poor, written by people claiming to be "authors" but who in fact have little or no writing skills. It's therefore harder to find a good book, and you are less likely to start reading them if from experience you know that you have a 90% chance of realising it's a rubbish book.
Ha, not a perfect analogy but it kind of illustrates my point.
.... Not at all. I have literally no idea how you reached that conclusion.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
By your reasoning, that means painting and sketching is **** because there are a lot of crap drawers/painters out there... Even in my old gcse (and under) classes.
You will always get good and bad quality... My first two hp laptops were glitched but I havent generalised and said all laptops are the same.
I didn't say that because people take bad photos no photos are good, so your analogy doesn't work at all.
Yep, it is indeed a social networking site. A big part of promoting art is social networking, getting to know the right people, generating awareness of your work, introducing your art to new people and communicating with people who admire your work as well as fellow artists. People who want to promote their art won't limit themselves to an art specific site, they'll also post in websites with a wider demographic so that more people see their work. Since Facebook is one of the most widely used websites it's therefore pretty smart for artists to post their work there.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
There are many sites that are tailored for art e.g deviant art, if you want to get noticed you pick Facebook? It's a social networking group...not a museum
you might as well ban everyone taking photos to regardless of whether they label their albums photography or not... If they want to promote, then go to an art specific site, are you even reading your posts? Jheeze
....(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
you might as well ban everyone taking photos to regardless of whether they label their albums photography or not... If they want to promote, then go to an art specific site, are you even reading your posts?
Yes, I am reading my posts, are you?(Original post by emilie18)
I'm not saying that they shouldn't take photos, I'm saying that they shouldn't post them on facebook in an album entitled "Photography".
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 6,998
Re: How old would you expect this person to be?Exactly, not everyone that wears a hoody is a thug...and the same applies to photography... not everyone is good...(Original post by emilie18)
... If anything that supports my argument. A lot of people associate hoodies with anti-social behaviour, despite the fact that not everyone who wears hoodies are thugs. And in the same way, the term "photography" has its own association.
you havent generalised people who wore hoodies as being thugs so why do so with photography and amateurs? what moron sees some crap labelled photos and generalises?
why do you think i even mentioned this?
you cant accept the fact that some people are crap. who the hell are you to say what art is and isnt? does someone have skill only if they please you?I don't have a superiority complex. I'm just stating a fact. Photography is an artform. Art = "works produced by such skill and imagination"; "quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance"; "expression or application of human creative skill and imagination". Emphasis on skill, expression, quality, beautiful, of more than ordinary significance. If art has all these connotations of beauty and quality, and photography is an artform, then yes I think it's reasonable to expect something entitled "photography" to contain "good" photos.
for someone who supposedly appreciates art, a rather subjective topic, you seem to be using objective rigid definitions arent you...
you are quite pompous so i wouldnt rule out the superiority complex... only difference between you and me is that i can actually admit my arrogance...
facebook is just a social networking site yet you get as pissed off as if it were some kind of premium photo site... get over yourself...I'm not basing my view soley on Instagram and Facebook... There are many different places where people claim to be "photographers", Facebook is just one of them..!
deserve? who are you to decide? if your panties are in that much of a bunch, then inbox those people and ask them to change it explaining why... if they dont, move on with your life...In my personal experience, based on my own Facebook account, there are LOTS of "photography" albums, 9/10 of which do not deserve to be called "photography", in my opinion, due to the fact that very little actual skill etc is involved. So when I see a new photography album posted by someone I don't know well, I'm less likely to click on it. So in my own experience yes, it makes me less likely to see potentially good photos.
not everyone will be born an already amazing photographer, some will see it as just a phase..point is, youre not the one to decide...
the hell? you post an album, the damn pictures are visible to people, they can see the damn photos, if they like it, they will look, if they dont, then they wont... what kind of brain dead reasoning is this?
you can be a photographer and not be one as a job/occupation you knowReplace Facebook/Internet with "library" and photography with "books". Imagine you are in that library. It's filled with books. 9/10 are poor, written by people claiming to be "authors" but who in fact have little or no writing skills. It's therefore harder to find a good book, and you are less likely to start reading them if from experience you know that you have a 90% chance of realising it's a rubbish book.
Ha, not a perfect analogy but it kind of illustrates my point.
i like drawing, i like art, i draw whenever i can, in this respect i can call myself an artist despite it not being my occupation... ive got people on my facebook who post amazing pictures and they dont get paid either...
I've got people on my Facebook who take pics because they like it, it's their hobby, I've also got an old teacher that took it up as a career...
.... Not at all. I have literally no idea how you reached that conclusion.
I didn't say that because people take bad photos no photos are good, so your analogy doesn't work at all. you think **** photographers shouldnt be able to call themselves photographers or label their work as their photography...
this is the same as a person posting **** drawings and calling it art... it is art... a 5 year old drawing is still art... it may not be something you can sell for cash but it is art nonetheless...
it seems that it is not that my analogy doesnt work but that you dont understand...
you want awareness? make a damn group... if people like your work, theyll like and share, if they dont, they wont add you... get your head out of your arse, some people just like posting for the fun of it...Yep, it is indeed a social networking site. A big part of promoting art is social networking, getting to know the right people, generating awareness of your work, introducing your art to new people and communicating with people who admire your work as well as fellow artists. People who want to promote their art won't limit themselves to an art specific site, they'll also post in websites with a wider demographic so that more people see their work. Since Facebook is one of the most widely used websites it's therefore pretty smart for artists to post their work there.
if people really wanted to promote their work, the work would speak for itself...
going by your stupid reasoning, you think crap photography will ruin other peoples chances of getting noticed... might as well go one step further and want everyone to stop posting photos aside from your 'photographers'... This way, their work won't be hindered.......
if you dont understand, im pointing out the flaw in your reasoning by going with it and extending it... Note that I'm not agreeing with you
you would actually need to understand what youre reading hereYes, I am reading my posts, are you?
it doesnt seem like you are...Last edited by Dmon1Unlimited; 18-07-2012 at 03:42. -
- Reputation:
- Full Member
- Location: Dagenham
- Posts: 81
Her use of okay to decent spelling and grammar leads me to believe she's past the stage of abbreviations for everything ruling out ages below 15. The subject appears to be emotionally insecure which is a typical trait of 15-18 year olds, though this is not conclusive evidence. I'm led to believe we are talking about a girl as the airing of dirty laundry is a very feminine pastime. This is later confirmed by you referring to the subject as "her". You also say her 18th birthday is approaching. I can say with a degree of certainty that our female subject is currently 17.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,142
Re: How old would you expect this person to be?Some people who wear hoodies are thugs > incorrect assumption that most people who wear hoodies are thugs > negative association ruining overall reputation of people who wear hoodies(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
Exactly, not everyone that wears a hoody is a thug...and the same applies to photography... not everyone is good...
you havent generalised people who wore hoodies as being thugs so why do so with photography and amateurs? what moron sees some crap labelled photos and generalises?
why do you think i even mentioned this?
Some people who label their work "photography" don't actually have much camera skill > incorrect assumption that most photos labelled "photography" won't be artful or skillful > negative association ruining overall reputation of photography.
That is how I read your analogy.
I'm not generalising, as I explained in my last reply. I am saying that the term "photography" online is associated with mediocre snaps as opposed to art. I am not saying that all photography is rubbish. Far from it, I love photography and that is why I am annoyed that some people use the term so freely and in my opinion incorrectly.
(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
you cant accept the fact that some people are crap. who the hell are you to say what art is and isnt? does someone have skill only if they please you? for someone who supposedly appreciates art, a rather subjective topic, you seem to be using objective rigid definitions arent you...
Art is subjective > based on opinion > as I keep saying, this is MY OPINION! Read my posts, I constantly say "based on my own experience", "personally...", "in my opinion...". All I am doing is justifying it because you seem hell bent on convincing me I'm wrong.
"Does someone only have skill if they please you?". Art is about pleasing the viewer in some way, which takes skill, through technique, creativity etc. So it's circular, to please you need some kind of skill and if you are skilled you should be able to please. Everyone can draw stick-men and yet not everyone can call themselves artists, it's the same thing, there is a line to draw somewhere which is based on skill.
You don't even know me, how can you throw that out there, that I have a "superiority complex"(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
you are quite pompous so i wouldnt rule out the superiority complex... only difference between you and me is that i can actually admit my arrogance... I'm not arrogant, I don't think I am better than anyone else. I don't know how you can justify this when all you are basing this on is a few internet posts.
Whaaaaaaat. This doesn't even make sense.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
facebook is just a social networking site yet you get as pissed off as if it were some kind of premium photo site... get over yourself...
Instead of being rude to me why don't you use actual logic reasoning to debate properly?
Art is subjective > IMO it doesn't really deserve a label that suggests skill and creativity when it involved no such thing.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
deserve? who are you to decide? if your panties are in that much of a bunch, then inbox those people and ask them to change it explaining why... if they dont, move on with your life...
not everyone will be born an already amazing photographer, some will see it as just a phase..point is, youre not the one to decide...
the hell? you post an album, the damn pictures are visible to people, they can see the damn photos, if they like it, they will look, if they dont, then they wont... what kind of brain dead reasoning is this?
Of course I can decide, art is based on opinions, the popularity of any artists work will depend on whether or not people DECIDE that it's good or not!!
No one is born an amazing photographer, it takes time to build up skills. Yeah it's just a phase, but until they can actual produce photographic art they shouldn't label it as art. IMO.
Again with the insulting me, chill out.
I am well aware of that. I love taking pictures, but I would never call my snaps "photography". Ditto. I draw and paint a lot, but personally I wouldn't call myself an artist, I just dabble and try to improve.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
you can be a photographer and not be one as a job/occupation you know
i like drawing, i like art, i draw whenever i can, in this respect i can call myself an artist despite it not being my occupation... ive got people on my facebook who post amazing pictures and they dont get paid either...
(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
I've got people on my Facebook who take pics because they like it, it's their hobby, I've also got an old teacher that took it up as a career...
That is what I think, yes. In the same way that someone who paints a shelf once shouldn't call themselves a decorator, or someone who writes a short story for English class shouldn't call themselves an author.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
you think **** photographers shouldnt be able to call themselves photographers or label their work as their photography...
this is the same as a person posting **** drawings and calling it art... it is art... a 5 year old drawing is still art... it may not be something you can sell for cash but it is art nonetheless...
it seems that it is not that my analogy doesnt work but that you dont understand...
My opinion is that it's harder for the "work to speak for itself" if every single picture online claims to be "photography".(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
you want awareness? make a damn group... if people like your work, theyll like and share, if they dont, they wont add you... get your head out of your arse, some people just like posting for the fun of it...
if people really wanted to promote their work, the work would speak for itself...
Again with the personal attacks, jeeez. Argue properly at least(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
going by your stupid reasoning, you think crap photography will ruin other peoples chances of getting noticed... might as well go one step further and want everyone to stop posting photos aside from your 'photographers'... This way, their work won't be hindered...
if you dont understand, im pointing out the flaw in your reasoning by going with it and extending it... Note that I'm not agreeing with you
What? No, obviously not. People should post pictures online and on Facebook, of course. I just don't think they should label everything "photography", because it's misleading.
I understand it perfectly well, thanks. I've taken into account your argument and countered it - politely - with my own opinion, something you seem unable to do since you've resorted to insulting not only my personality but my intelligence(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
you would actually need to understand what youre reading here
it doesnt seem like you are...
Last edited by emilie18; 18-07-2012 at 14:44. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 6,998
Re: How old would you expect this person to be?long posts... lovely(Original post by emilie18)
x
Spoiler:Showno, im not implying you are... im saying you havent generalised people with hoodies as being thugs, so why would people generalise seeing crap photos as being the essence of photography?Some people who wear hoodies are thugs > incorrect assumption that most people who wear hoodies are thugs > negative association ruining overall reputation of people who wear hoodies
Some people who label their work "photography" don't actually have much camera skill > incorrect assumption that most photos labelled "photography" won't be artful or skillful > negative association ruining overall reputation of photography.
That is how I read your analogy.
I'm not generalising, as I explained in my last reply. I am saying that the term "photography" online is associated with mediocre snaps as opposed to art. I am not saying that all photography is rubbish. Far from it, I love photography and that is why I am annoyed that some people use the term so freely and in my opinion incorrectly.
you read my analogy and then you do a 360 and go back to association? a few people thinking so does not mean the definition has changed.. it isnt incorrect... if they engage in the activity then they are...
1) no one with more than an IQ of 2 would think of photography in general as taking **** photos
2) youre doing it again... you dont recognise it just because you dont like it...
yh its your opinion just like thinking 'being gay is immoral' is also an opinion, doesnt mean its not mental...you seem impervious to the notion that your opinion is...
Art is subjective > based on opinion > as I keep saying, this is MY OPINION! Read my posts, I constantly say "based on my own experience", "personally...", "in my opinion...". All I am doing is justifying it because you seem hell bent on convincing me I'm wrong.
"Does someone only have skill if they please you?". Art is about pleasing the viewer in some way, which takes skill, through technique, creativity etc. So it's circular, to please you need some kind of skill and if you are skilled you should be able to please. Everyone can draw stick-men and yet not everyone can call themselves artists, it's the same thing, there is a line to draw somewhere which is based on skill.
dont give me that crap, those photos werent made specifically to please you... some people might like something that others hate... your reasoning is flawed. and your still going on about skill technique etc... they dont aim to please you, its not all about you... other people exist you mong... read their comments, im sure atleast one comment there will be positive or that theres atleast one 'like'...
drawing stick people cant be considered art right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF_5v0yExHE
by reading your posts to me... thats howYou don't even know me, how can you throw that out there, that I have a "superiority complex" I'm not arrogant, I don't think I am better than anyone else. I don't know how you can justify this when all you are basing this on is a few internet posts.
like a fan boy that doesnt want anything bad to be involved with their fascination... you are hell bent on making sure nothing you consider bad is labelled it... i may not know about what you are like with other topics/aspects of life, but im not talking about them, im talking about with regard to this topic
lets say you take photos and you have some skill, and people like this, what stops a world class professional from acting like you and saying "wtf, who is this dope? she shouldnt be tsking photos as if she were a photographer with crap photos like that, freaking disgrace"
it does make sense...facebook is not a premium photo site, stop acting like it is...Whaaaaaaat. This doesn't even make sense.
Instead of being rude to me why don't you use actual logic reasoning to debate properly?
actual logic?
dont make me laugh, i know how to debate... how about you get off your high horse and accept not everyone can be good and still take part in photography..
yes art is subjective, even if you dont like it, doesnt mean it involves no effort or contemplation of meaning etc... because there are other perspectives other than your own... putting in effort has objective aspects however...you may not like it but that doesnt mean you can say no effort was put inArt is subjective > IMO it doesn't really deserve a label that suggests skill and creativity when it involved no such thing.
Of course I can decide, art is based on opinions, the popularity of any artists work will depend on whether or not people DECIDE that it's good or not!!
No one is born an amazing photographer, it takes time to build up skills. Yeah it's just a phase, but until they can actual produce photographic art they shouldn't label it as art. IMO.
Again with the insulting me, chill out.
no, while his popularity is based on others like you mentioned, the guys label of photographer isnt something you decide... if the guy takes photos, then he is one...accept it...
well in my opinion, i think thats bullcrap because you assume people need to like it for it to be considered art.. it doesnt... i consider it snobbish to think so...
what is this 'im not worthy' mentalityI am well aware of that. I love taking pictures, but I would never call my snaps "photography". Ditto. I draw and paint a lot, but personally I wouldn't call myself an artist, I just dabble and try to improve.
the people i know who dont do it as a job, consider themselves photographers...and i agree with them because there is no threshold barrier...
i dont think you can get past the fact that you can be a photographer despite not being able to 1)please you 2) do it as a job
if you engage in the activity, then you are a photographer, but since youre obsessed with association, youve fallen for it and now think its not about engaging in the activity but being good and such... well what is good?
yes, a person decorating a shelf by changing its colour, calling himself a decorator?That is what I think, yes. In the same way that someone who paints a shelf once shouldn't call themselves a decorator, or someone who writes a short story for English class shouldn't call themselves an author.
people creating their own stories? authors? good one.... its not like actual authors create their own stories haha... oh wait...
you seem to be ignoring the fact that you can do something and not do it as a job...
and my educated opinion is that this is false... you post a good pic and people will notice it because it is good... if they dont click on the thumbnails its more likely that they were not interested in the thumbnail rather than everyones crappy photos hindering your awareness...My opinion is that it's harder for the "work to speak for itself" if every single picture online claims to be "photography".
im sorry, it just annoys me off when people take the piss... its one thing to not like photos, but its another to think they are unworthy of being photographers just because you dont like them...Again with the personal attacks, jeeez. Argue properly at least
What? No, obviously not. People should post pictures online and on Facebook, of course. I just don't think they should label everything "photography", because it's misleading.
its just snobbish to think you need to be good in order to be considered a photographer
if they engage in the activity, then it isnt misleading...
i dont think so, but with your next post, ill promise to lighten up a bit if you try to see where im coming from i.e. understanding, perspective and suchI understand it perfectly well, thanks. I've taken into account your argument and countered it - politely - with my own opinion, something you seem unable to do since you've resorted to insulting not only my personality but my intelligence
Last edited by Dmon1Unlimited; 18-07-2012 at 18:14. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,142
Re: How old would you expect this person to be?(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
.Spoiler:Show
Association and generalisation are pretty closely linked - if you associate something with something else you may generalise and see them as always linked. You see?(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
no, im not implying you are... im saying you havent generalised people with hoodies as being thugs, so why would people generalise seeing crap photos as being the essence of photography?
you read my analogy and then you do a 360 and go back to association? a few people thinking so does not mean the definition has changed.. it isnt incorrect... if they engage in the activity then they are...
1) no one with more than an IQ of 2 would think of photography in general as taking **** photos
2) youre doing it again... you dont recognise it just because you dont like it...
1) Obviously. I didn't say that. I'm just suggesting that people shouldn't label each and everyone of their pictures "photography". Having, as you say, **** photos labelled in the same term as amazing art kind of makes the word loses value, IMO.
2) I don't understand what that sentence is trying to say.
My opinion that photography is an art form and should therefore involve quality, creativity and skill is "mental"? Hmm.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
yh its your opinion just like thinking 'being gay is immoral' is also an opinion, doesnt mean its not mental...you seem impervious to the notion that your opinion is...
MY reasoning is flawed?(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
dont give me that crap, those photos werent made specifically to please you... some people might like something that others hate... your reasoning is flawed. and your still going on about skill technique etc... they dont aim to please you, its not all about you... other people exist you mong... read their comments, im sure atleast one comment there will be positive or that theres atleast one 'like'...
I'm not even going to bother, that's disgusting and offensive.
... Yeah I think it's pretty obvious that I was referring to the stickmen that little kids doodle in their margin. Not the animated variety which require time and effort and skill, clearly.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
drawing stick people cant be considered art right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF_5v0yExHE
(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
by reading your posts to me... thats how
like a fan boy that doesnt want anything bad to be involved with their fascination... you are hell bent on making sure nothing you consider bad is labelled it... i may not know about what you are like with other topics/aspects of life, but im not talking about them, im talking about with regard to this topic
Exactly. That is not enough for you to base your assumptions on.
Anyone who appreciates art of any kind would be annoyed to see anything and everything labelled art. E.g. why do you think Damien Hurst is so controversial?
I'm not saying "Wtf, who is this dope..." etc, I'm simply saying I think it's misleading to label ALL photos "photography" because it implies SKILL. I'm not discouraging anyone from taking photos, at all. I'm just saying stop calling them art!!(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
lets say you take photos and you have some skill, and people like this, what stops a world class professional from acting like you and saying "wtf, who is this dope? she shouldnt be tsking photos as if she were a photographer with crap photos like that, freaking disgrace"
I don't think and have never implied that it is a premium photo site, I simply stated that as a social networking site it's often used for people to promote their work.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
it does make sense...facebook is not a premium photo site, stop acting like it is...
If you knew how to debate you wouldn't resort to personal insults(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
actual logic? dont make me laugh, i know how to debate... how about you get off your high horse and accept not everyone can be good and still take part in photography..
I've never said people can't take photos, that would be ridiculous! I'm just saying it's misleading to label ALL photos "photography". Not all photos are art. You seem unable to grasp this concept.
I'm sorry but write more clearly, this doesn't make much sense.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
yes art is subjective, even if you dont like it, doesnt mean it involves no effort or contemplation of meaning etc... because there are other perspectives other than your own... putting in effort has objective aspects however...you may not like it but that doesnt mean you can say no effort was put in
So by your reasoning, every photo should be called photography? Despite the fact that the term suggests skill and not every photo involves skill.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
no, while his popularity is based on others like you mentioned, the guys label of photographer isnt something you decide... if the guy takes photos, then he is one...accept it...
Art is supposed to be appealing in some way. Otherwise any mundane object would be considered art. Soooo it's not snobbish to assume that art should be liked in some way. Why else would people travel worldwide to galleries? To look at something they hate?(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
well in my opinion, i think thats bullcrap because you assume people need to like it for it to be considered art.. it doesnt... i consider it snobbish to think so...
Of course I can get past that fact. I have several friends who see themselves as photographers despite not being professional photgraphers.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
what is this 'im not worthy' mentality
the people i know who dont do it as a job, consider themselves photographers...and i agree with them because there is no threshold barrier...
i dont think you can get past the fact that you can be a photographer despite not being able to 1)please you 2) do it as a job
You seem to think that everyone who takes a picture can call themselves a photographer?
I think we're just disagreeing on the definition of photography. I personally see it as defining ART, you see it as the process of taking pictures.
There's clearly a threshhold barrier somewhere in art, otherwise anyone could claim to be artists.
(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
if you engage in the activity, then you are a photographer, but since youre obsessed with association, youve fallen for it and now think its not about engaging in the activity but being good and such... well what is good?
yes, a person decorating a shelf by changing its colour, calling himself a decorator?
people creating their own stories? authors? good one.... its not like actual authors create their own stories haha... oh wait...
you seem to be ignoring the fact that you can do something and not do it as a job... So hard to try and decipher what you are saying in that first paragraph!
Not everyone who takes pictures is a photographer. In the same way that not everyone who draws is an artist...
Of course I understand the fact that you can do something and not do it as a job.
Well, in my own educated opinion I disagree, but there you go.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
and my educated opinion is that this is false... you post a good pic and people will notice it because it is good... if they dont click on the thumbnails its more likely that they were not interested in the thumbnail rather than everyones crappy photos hindering your awareness...
I LOVE PHOTOS, I don't understand why you keep saying I don't. I love art and photography which is why the fact that people use these terms so freely to describe what is IMO not art annoys me a little.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
im sorry, it just annoys me off when people take the piss... its one thing to not like photos, but its another to think they are unworthy of being photographers just because you dont like them...
its just snobbish to think you need to be good in order to be considered a photographer
if they engage in the activity, then it isnt misleading...
I've done nothing but try to understand (which is hard sometimes considering the way you write, just saying) your opinion. Try not to insult me in your next post(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
i dont think so, but with your next post, ill promise to lighten up a bit if you try to see where im coming from i.e. understanding, perspective and such
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 6,998
Re: How old would you expect this person to be?not everything art related has to be exhibit worthy or involve a lot of skill... you seem hell bent on thinking the word 'photography' is more than what it actually is due to this fanboy-ism...(Original post by emilie18)
.
Spoiler:Show
they may be similar but not synonymousAssociation and generalisation are pretty closely linked - if you associate something with something else you may generalise and see them as always linked. You see?
1) Obviously. I didn't say that. I'm just suggesting that people shouldn't label each and everyone of their pictures "photography". Having, as you say, **** photos labelled in the same term as amazing art kind of makes the word loses value, IMO.
2) I don't understand what that sentence is trying to say.
Is associating a persons heart not beating for month with death a generalisation?
Is associating calcium with bone health a generalisation?
if you believe they are synonymous, then thats like saying you do believe people in hoodies are all thugs...
1)bullcrap, youre suggesting that because of the association...
because get this...activity of taking photos=photography...get this through your head, all photography =/= amazing art, dont try to bring other labels like 'amazing art' into this...
2)you dont like the photos so you dont consider them photography... when they are
you can think something is crap, but that doesnt mean the person isnt be a photographer... a computer manufacturer that has most of its product fall apart easily is still a computer manufacturer... its crap but it still is one...My opinion that photography is an art form and should therefore involve quality, creativity and skill is "mental"? Hmm.
i guess ill leave the colloquialism out of this then...
yes...photography is engaging in the activity, it doesnt involve quality because its subjective... what one person considers awesome, another may consider ****... so to say it needs to involve quality is stupid. you havent provided any explanation to why it needs to involve it...MY reasoning is flawed?
I'm not even going to bother, that's disgusting and offensive.
disgusting and offensive? the hells wrong with you...
it is art, it may be basic but it still is... art is a general term and you seem hell bent on making sure its only associated with what you regard as talented/skilled etc...... Yeah I think it's pretty obvious that I was referring to the stickmen that little kids doodle in their margin. Not the animated variety which require time and effort and skill, clearly.
http://weheartit.com/tag/are%20you%20real
it is art, whether you like it or not...
oh bloody hell Exactly. That is not enough for you to base your assumptions on.
Anyone who appreciates art of any kind would be annoyed to see anything and everything labelled art. E.g. why do you think Damien Hurst is so controversial?.. it is... im not freaking trying to write down every single trait of your personality... im talking about this topic... and in this topic you act like only good/skilled people should be considered photographers hence being snobbish... im saying its regarding this damn topic, im not talking about what people think of you when you talk about school or whatever... it THIS topic jheeeze
it highlights the snobbery in art...look at the shark in a tank, people criticised it but it has its own statement... highlighting death... people may not like it but get this...art..is..SUBJECTIVE hence the controversy...
you are not saying "Wtf, who is this dope...", you are saying "Wtf, who is this dope who thinks he can consider his album to be photography..."I'm not saying "Wtf, who is this dope..." etc, I'm simply saying I think it's misleading to label ALL photos "photography" because it implies SKILL. I'm not discouraging anyone from taking photos, at all. I'm just saying stop calling them art!!
it isnt misleading to use photography if you engage in the activity... and an aspect of photography is a part of art... so no, people shouldnt be stopped...
art is art... there is no skill threshold that you need to cross to be considered art...
yet you get peeved when people post their crap photos... and think it will hinder the awareness of those who have made good photos...I don't think and have never implied that it is a premium photo site, I simply stated that as a social networking site it's often used for people to promote their work.
i know how to debate... insults=/=lack of debating skills... its from a lack of patience in my case because im engaging with a person who just wants art to be associated with talented skilled people...If you knew how to debate you wouldn't resort to personal insults
I've never said people can't take photos, that would be ridiculous! I'm just saying it's misleading to label ALL photos "photography". Not all photos are art. You seem unable to grasp this concept.
it isnt misleading! it isnt...accept it...
im unable to grasp this concept? you cant get out of the delusion that only skilled people are artists... not all photos are art, but it is if the person intended them to be... hence labelling 'photography'...
and you say you understand... pft it does make sense, it just doesnt make sense to you (emphasis on 'you') because you cant understand it.I'm sorry but write more clearly, this doesn't make much sense.
art is subjective, just because you dont like something, doesnt mean you can say it isnt art as it doesnt provoke an expression (to you) or whatever... because you are not an 'art-detector'.... you can dislike it by all means, but you are not one to say if something is art or not...
if you take photos, it is photography... all photography=/=art...it depends on the persons motive towards taking the picture...So by your reasoning, every photo should be called photography? Despite the fact that the term suggests skill and not every photo involves skill.
appealing to who? you? yes it is snobbish... liked? does the creator not like his work? why cant you get out of this shell that only what you consider good is art?Art is supposed to be appealing in some way. Otherwise any mundane object would be considered art. Soooo it's not snobbish to assume that art should be liked in some way. Why else would people travel worldwide to galleries? To look at something they hate?
everyone has different taste and will not necessarily like everything in galleries just because its in a gallery...
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...25504_ode1.jpg
not everyone will like it...
This may not involve much effort compared to the mona lisa, yet both were in an exhibit....
taking pictures = photography, that is the name of the damn activity... hell, a body of photos= photography to... you confuse it with the hobby/profession because of your obsessing with art and skill...Of course I can get past that fact. I have several friends who see themselves as photographers despite not being professional photgraphers.
You seem to think that everyone who takes a picture can call themselves a photographer?
I think we're just disagreeing on the definition of photography. I personally see it as defining ART, you see it as the process of taking pictures.
There's clearly a threshhold barrier somewhere in art, otherwise anyone could claim to be artists.
theres no deciphering So hard to try and decipher what you are saying in that first paragraph!
Not everyone who takes pictures is a photographer. In the same way that not everyone who draws is an artist...
Of course I understand the fact that you can do something and not do it as a job.
if you take photos, that is photography, that is the damn activity...
if im taking several photos, what activity am i engaging in? boat rowing? no... its photography... yet you cant take this in because this stupid association of photography and bad/amateur photos is wedged into your mind...
drawing is an art form.... some people may not intend to create art by drawing but that doesnt mean you can say any basic drawing like stickman isnt... look at the pics i posted... just because its not to your taste doesnt mean its not art...
educated based on what? my opinion was based on the actual meaning of the word... yours is just from a fascination with wanting everything art worthy to be cool...Well, in my own educated opinion I disagree, but there you go.
im not saying you dont love photos, im saying its a piss take when you say people are not photographers just because you dont like their photos... it isnt misleading... you just dont like it and dont want it to labelled as such...I LOVE PHOTOS, I don't understand why you keep saying I don't. I love art and photography which is why the fact that people use these terms so freely to describe what is IMO not art annoys me a little.
it is possible for you to not like some art... not everything art related has to be something you love...
ive been explaining that not everything this is considered good can be labelled photography... you can have crap photos... you make photography/art more judgemental than it should be... just because my doodle isnt going to be in an exhibit doesnt mean its not art...I've done nothing but try to understand (which is hard sometimes considering the way you write, just saying) your opinion. Try not to insult me in your next post
you havent given any explanation that art should only involve what you consider skill
its a pet peeve ill try to fix...
Last edited by Dmon1Unlimited; 19-07-2012 at 00:11. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,142
Re: How old would you expect this person to be?(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
.Spoiler:Show
You don't seem to understand what I have now explained several times.
I'll try again.
In MY opinion, "photography" means ART. Seeing the word "photography" attached to ALL photos is therefore a little irritating, because not all photos are ART.
Some photos are easily reproduced and take no amount of skill. Others require imagination, skill, creativity, careful planning etc etc etc. There is a clear distinction between the two, although interpretations of art vary hugely it seems that there can be some kind of a line drawn between the two types. SURELY you can see that.
There are two different ways of understanding the word "photography"(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
yes...photography is engaging in the activity, it doesnt involve quality because its subjective... what one person considers awesome, another may consider ****... so to say it needs to involve quality is stupid. you havent provided any explanation to why it needs to involve it...
- the physical, technical process of taking a picture
- seeing it as an artform
It's not stupid to say a good photo should be good quality.
What the hell is wrong with ME?! Are you actually joking. Of course the word "mong" is offensive, I can't believe you even used it, let alone that you are now apparently surprised that I find it offensive!
So, by your reasoning, everyone should be considered photographers? Regardless of the quality of their photos?(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
oh bloody hell.. it is... im not freaking trying to write down every single trait of your personality... im talking about this topic... and in this topic you act like only good/skilled people should be considered photographers hence being snobbish... im saying its regarding this damn topic, im not talking about what people think of you when you talk about school or whatever... it THIS topic jheeeze
The reason for the controversy surrounding Hurst is that everyone knows he is not at all skilled. So I don't think I'm wrong in saying that skill is definitely a big part of art.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
it highlights the snobbery in art...look at the shark in a tank, people criticised it but it has its own statement... highlighting death... people may not like it but get this...art..is..SUBJECTIVE hence the controversy...
Again, we clearly interpret the terms "photography" and "art" in different ways, which is fine because as we both keep pointing out it's subjective(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
you are not saying "Wtf, who is this dope...", you are saying "Wtf, who is this dope who thinks he can consider his album to be photography..."
it isnt misleading to use photography if you engage in the activity... and an aspect of photography is a part of art... so no, people shouldnt be stopped...
art is art... there is no skill threshold that you need to cross to be considered art...
If there is no threshhold then EVERYTHING, every drawing, every photo, would be considered art. Since that is not the case, then yes, there is a threshhold.
So art should be associated with non-talented, non-skilled people?(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
i know how to debate... insults=/=lack of debating skills... its from a lack of patience in my case because im engaging with a person who just wants art to be associated with talented skilled people... Then there would be no art, since the word would be completely meaningless. Everyone would be artists.
For the thousandth time - IN MY OPINION, it is misleading.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
it isnt misleading! it isnt...accept it...
im unable to grasp this concept? you cant get out of the delusion that only skilled people are artists... not all photos are art, but it is if the person intended them to be... hence labelling 'photography'...
I don't think that crap photos can be called "photography" due to the fact that the term implies skill and quality. That is all I am suggesting.(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
ive been explaining that not everything this is considered good can be labelled photography... you can have crap photos... you make photography/art more judgemental than it should be... just because my doodle isnt going to be in an exhibit doesnt mean its not art...
you havent given any explanation that art should only involve what you consider skill
Art is so-called because it requires some kind of skill If it didn't then everyone would be able to create masterpieces and they would be common-place.
Agree to disagree?
Or keep going round in circles?
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 6,998
Re: How old would you expect this person to be?seems, like you quoted the old version of my post, look back, i made a small edit in order to minimise confusion(Original post by emilie18)
x
youre using your own variation of the meaning of a word and disregarded aspects that are actually related to its meaning... yes you are using your opinion but that doesnt mean you can disregard what aspects are actually related to it...Spoiler:Show
youre over using 'opinion' now... fact is it represents more than just art... it is photography whether you like or notYou don't seem to understand what I have now explained several times.
I'll try again.
In MY opinion, "photography" means ART. Seeing the word "photography" attached to ALL photos is therefore a little irritating, because not all photos are ART.
again, photography=activity of taking pics... and how do you know none of this was present when the person took the photo? art does vary, but there is no line, youve simply made up this line for what seems like no good reason.... one mans rubbish could be another mans artpiece.Some photos are easily reproduced and take no amount of skill. Others require imagination, skill, creativity, careful planning etc etc etc. There is a clear distinction between the two, although interpretations of art vary hugely it seems that there can be some kind of a line drawn between the two types. SURELY you can see that.
it isnt stupid, agreed, however it is stupid to say a person who takes photos isnt a photographer because you dont like the work... this is what you are doing...There are two different ways of understanding the word "photography"
- the physical, technical process of taking a picture
- seeing it as an artform
It's not stupid to say a good photo should be good quality.
mong 2 *(mɒŋ)*What the hell is wrong with ME?! Are you actually joking. Of course the word "mong" is offensive, I can't believe you even used it, let alone that you are now apparently surprised that I find it offensive!
— n
slang *( Brit ) a stupid or foolish person how is this different to 'dope'?
if you take part in taking a body of photos then you have engaged in photography, the reason why you probably think this is stupid is because you keep associating the whole of photography with art when it isnt...So, by your reasoning, everyone should be considered photographers? Regardless of the quality of their photos?
no, its because he caught a shark, stuffed it in a solution to preserve it and stuck it in a tank for people to gawk at. its controversial because of the shock factor, animal rights activists were pissed off...The reason for the controversy surrounding Hurst is that everyone knows he is not at all skilled. So I don't think I'm wrong in saying that skill is definitely a big part of art.
http://www.shortlist.com/shortlists/...l-works-of-art
stuff like 'what is good' is subjective... the use of the word photography isnt... body of pics=photography...Again, we clearly interpret the terms "photography" and "art" in different ways, which is fine because as we both keep pointing out it's subjective
If there is no threshhold then EVERYTHING, every drawing, every photo, would be considered art. Since that is not the case, then yes, there is a threshhold.
what is art can be subjective but yes it can involve anything... if it invokes a responce, an expression etc, why shouldnt it
if i took a rubbish bin and littered the floor of a room with it, would you call it art? what if that room was an exhibition?
art is a very vague/general wordSo art should be associated with non-talented, non-skilled people? Then there would be no art, since the word would be completely meaningless. Everyone would be artists.
an art class in a nursery school involves making art... your delusion that all art must be quality exhibit worthy work means you cant recognise this...
art=/=high quality work
for the 'thousand and one'th time, it isnt... you using your own damn variation of the word doesnt mean it is misleading....For the thousandth time - IN MY OPINION, it is misleading.
this implying refers to you associating it with professionals and galleries and such... the words meaning is bigger than you think, you using your 'opinion' of what it means does not mean you can alter it to remove what is obvious...I don't think that crap photos can be called "photography" due to the fact that the term implies skill and quality. That is all I am suggesting.
art is a general word... youve just added an altered meaning to it and are arguing from there... look at the rubbish tip link i posted... its in a freaking exhibition...Art is so-called because it requires some kind of skill If it didn't then everyone would be able to create masterpieces and they would be common-place.
Agree to disagree?
Or keep going round in circles?
it is easy to create a piece of art work, it doesnt mean everyone will...
go on, go to every nursery school art class in the world and tell the class..."NO, i dont like your work, you are not creating art... shame on you"
agree to disagree but personally, while annoying, i dont mind if we keep going or not. keep posting and ill keep replying to what i disagree with
Last edited by Dmon1Unlimited; 19-07-2012 at 02:14. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,142
Re: How old would you expect this person to be?(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
.Spoiler:Show
(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
mong 2 *(mɒŋ)*
— n
slang *( Brit ) a stupid or foolish person how is this different to 'dope'?
Are you not aware that it means Down's Syndrome? It's a really out-dated and frownded upon insult, quite rightly, pretty much anyone would dislike you using that term.
Sooo yep it's quite different to dope
Well that's settled then, let's just agree to disagree!(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
agree to disagree but personally, while annoying, i dont mind if we keep going or not. keep posting and ill keep replying to what i disagree with
I personally don't have the time or inclination to keep going round in circles, so let's just accept that I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 6,998
Re: How old would you expect this person to be?Ive just heard of the definition ive posted which is colloquialism ...Fair enough, I'll just stick with dope next time...(Original post by emilie18)
Spoiler:Show
Are you not aware that it means Down's Syndrome? It's a really out-dated and frownded upon insult, quite rightly, pretty much anyone would dislike you using that term.
Sooo yep it's quite different to dope
Well that's settled then, let's just agree to disagree!
I personally don't have the time or inclination to keep going round in circles, so let's just accept that I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong
Okay, though I wasn't stating an opinion regarding photography=body of photos... It really is called this
