Why do people get so excited and angry...

claacct said:
There is a lot of anger in still photography community. Its virtually impossible to discuss anything without a fight ensuing and name calling... My conclusion is that all the topics discussed in photography forums are often so repetitious that it automatically makes people angry, for example its like the next time someone ask "which lens?" I'm going punch myself in the face, sort of a thing...

While its convenient to classify photographers, among the rednecks, fine artist, fake Pjs, wannabe Moriyamas, Gilden's lackeys, or just vulgar gear hoarders etc. in the end of the day its basically a case of sharks turning on one another as the prey has fled and there is no food to eat, which in this case is the reality that still photography is finished and creativity has left the field, so where to direct that anger and range, well, its the guy who has an annoying avatar or who cannot form a basic sentence, or the guy who has ten links in his signature trying to promote his work in an imaginary world where in actuality nobody give a damn... But I digress...

Back to the topic, whatever its actually about...
Click to expand...

Now there's a term that is freaking impossible. Using my name with Gilden whom I detest.:p

Seriously, if this forum is so bad, why would anyone be here? This is a still photography forum the last time I looked...and the best one I know of.
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
:eek: I wish I did... English is a very beautiful language... But sometimes I feel I use the same 20 words all the time! :D

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Juan, half the people in this little town I live in could only wish they could command the language as well as you.

Regarding the now deleted thread. Forget about it. Move on. We have a lot more to hear from you and can't wait, much less waste time on a dead thread.:)
 
bigeye said:
This composition represents Hegel's method of triadic development.

The bent form of the rear bumper is annihilated (sublation) by the downward pressure of the barrel in bed of my old Ford by the forces of the homemade fork-lift and some sort of strange old bucket loader to achieve the third of Hegel's stages, which is the first stage, returned to itself in a higher, truer, richer, and fuller form

IMAG0169.jpg


Now, that is redneck art philosophy.

.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you framed it just so slightly to the left, you could have paid homage to the golden mean.:p
 
Wish I knew, Roger. Finding out what people really like, no matter what they say, is difficult. Maybe it's a class thing. People often pretend to like, or dislike, something, because they believe someone of their "class" (I use that word very loosely and with reluctance) is supposed to like or dislike it. For every snob, there's a pretend redneck.
 
We have changed from "According to Webster's" to "According to Wikipedia". Kind of makes me feel old.

:D

Also, my brother-in-law is in school for philosophy and the more I talk with him, the more it seems the profession is glorified arguments between egoists. It kind of derailed my long-held view that it was debate of the highest order about things that mattered. No dig on philosophy, but as another poster mentioned...I get more than enough anger at work.

As to the original post, I'm sure it's feelings of self doubt manifesting itself. If you care deeply about something, it's rather easy to get defensive.


Jamie123 said:
Aesthetics is, to quote Wikipedia...
Click to expand...
 
dave lackey said:
Juan, half the people in this little town I live in could only wish they could command the language as well as you.

Regarding the now deleted thread. Forget about it. Move on. We have a lot more to hear from you and can't wait, much less waste time on a dead thread.:)
Click to expand...

Thanks Dave!

I really need to avoid those conceptual discussions... I promise I will try...

Wishing all the best for you all on your next RFF meeting... Please say hi to David!

Cheers,

Juan
 
I have thought a fair amount about this question. I think it is not so much a division between fine artists and rednecks so much as the ignorant and the educated (or those who think they are). I am using the word ignorant here carefully. I include myself in that category - ignorance is a lack of knowledge. By the purest definition I am an ignorant amateur photographer. I have a great lack of knowledge and I don't make photography my profession. But I am interested in photography. Being ignorant, we make comments or ask questions that have other more knowledgeable folks rolling their eyes. Sometimes a comment is made that is perceived as less civil than it could be. That is when a vigorous discussion begins, but without much hope of a fair debate. For instance, if I were to enter into a debate with Roger it would be like bringing a knife to a bomb fight. I would be unable to debate equally because of my lack of knowledge. For some individuals frustration and anger might follow. At least I think there are instances where this is true.
 
wgerrard said:
Wish I knew, Roger. Finding out what people really like, no matter what they say, is difficult. Maybe it's a class thing. People often pretend to like, or dislike, something, because they believe someone of their "class" (I use that word very loosely and with reluctance) is supposed to like or dislike it. For every snob, there's a pretend redneck.
Click to expand...

Dear Bill,

Indeed. There are people who buy their opinions in large packages: if you're a Republican, you HAVE to believe this, this and this, while a Democrat HAS to believe that, that and that. It's arguably worse in some ways in the UK, where there are national papers designed to appeal to a particular group and reinforce their prejudices: Grauniad (Guardian, Guradian, famous for its lack of proofreading) to the left, Torygraph (Telegraph) to the right, and so forth.

There's an old joke (slightly obsolete with the decline of the Times and the the rise of the Sun, which is like the Mirror only a lot more so) to the effect that the Times is read by those who run the country, the Telegraph by those who used to run the country, the Guardian by those who think they ought to run the country, the Financial Times by those who own the country, and the Mirror by those who don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big t*ts.

Cheers,

R.
 
SciAggie said:
I have thought a fair amount about this question. I think it is not so much a division between fine artists and rednecks so much as the ignorant and the educated (or those who think they are). I am using the word ignorant here carefully. I include myself in that category - ignorance is a lack of knowledge. By the purest definition I am an ignorant amateur photographer. I have a great lack of knowledge and I don't make photography my profession. But I am interested in photography. Being ignorant, we make comments or ask questions that have other more knowledgeable folks rolling their eyes. Sometimes a comment is made that is perceived as less civil than it could be. That is when a vigorous discussion begins, but without much hope of a fair debate. For instance, if I were to enter into a debate with Roger it would be like bringing a knife to a bomb fight. I would be unable to debate equally because of my lack of knowledge. For some individuals frustration and anger might follow. At least I think there are instances where this is true.
Click to expand...

Dear Gary,

Something I've often noticed about people who really know what they are talking about is that their vocabulary includes the phrase "I could be wrong." Many of them also have the talent for treating others as equals, speaking as though they were reminding them of something they had temporarily forgotten, rather than bringing down tablets from the mountain.

But, of course, that also demands a certain amount of complicity on the part of the other person, rather than an immediate, aggressive counter-attack which only intensifies when it is rebutteed. I've always liked the quote from the late Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Cheers,

R.
 
from my experience (included work and real life, not only about photography) "people who really know what they are talking about" , as you say Roger, don't need to be aggressive to demonstrate what they know. And they know that there is a possibility (maybe small) to be wrong.
The "other" need some "help" through verbal strength to demonstrate what they think to know.
It's a matter of today's life. I was just reading in one of our newspapers how difficult is today for most of people to accept different opinions and quietly discuss them. Personally I think too many talk shows where everybody shouts, shouts and shouts even stronger. ciao
robert, trying to be a quiet photographer, between silver and silicic ...
 
+1 Robert! I can no longer watch the news on CNN or FOX with all of the talking-over and yelling at each other to the point you cannot even hear what either one is saying/yelling!:mad: Talk shows? Forget it...I would rather have a root canal from the back passage as Roger calls it.;)
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bill,

Indeed. There are people who buy their opinions in large packages: if you're a Republican, you HAVE to believe this, this and this, while a Democrat HAS to believe that, that and that. It's arguably worse in some ways in the UK, where there are national papers...

R.
Click to expand...

With the exception of the New York Times and USA Today, we don't have national papers in the same sense. But, we do have cable TV and talk radio, and they're explicitly in the business of selling pre-packaged opinion, i.e., anger.

I didn't read the thread that prompt your post here. It seems to me that taste is a personal and private thing that really doesn't need to be explained or justified. It's nice when people want to learn something about whatever it is they like. And learn enough about themselves so they begin to understand what they like and why, rather than putting on a set of opinions like you would a new suit. If nothing else, when someone asks, "Why do you like that?", they'll have already thought about it.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Gary,

Something I've often noticed about people who really know what they are talking about is that their vocabulary includes the phrase "I could be wrong." Many of them also have the talent for treating others as equals, speaking as though they were reminding them of something they had temporarily forgotten, rather than bringing down tablets from the mountain.

But, of course, that also demands a certain amount of complicity on the part of the other person, rather than an immediate, aggressive counter-attack which only intensifies when it is rebutteed. I've always liked the quote from the late Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I agree. As usual, you have distilled the issue quite well. It is the "I could be wrong" and the balancing complicity that is so often missing. Just to be clear, I was not accusing you of bad behavior (I don't believe you took it that way). I used you in my example as someone with a depth of knowledge to contrast my ignornace in photography.
 
wgerrard said:
With the exception of the New York Times and USA Today, we don't have national papers in the same sense. But, we do have cable TV and talk radio, and they're explicitly in the business of selling pre-packaged opinion, i.e., anger.

I didn't read the thread that prompt your post here. It seems to me that taste is a personal and private thing that really doesn't need to be explained or justified. It's nice when people want to learn something about whatever it is they like. And learn enough about themselves so they begin to understand what they like and why, rather than putting on a set of opinions like you would a new suit. If nothing else, when someone asks, "Why do you like that?", they'll have already thought about it.
Click to expand...

Dear Bill,

Ahhhh.... Good point. I had quite forgotten Rush Lardball and his ilk, to say nothing of the 'Christian' station which stated flatly that the Pope was the Antichrist. I'm not sure whether to thank you or curse you for reminding me.

A further thought, though: they don't just sell just anger. It's also fear. Then, if they can, a poisonous cocktail of the two: hatred.

Cheers,

R.
 
SciAggie said:
I agree. As usual, you have distilled the issue quite well. It is the "I could be wrong" and the balancing complicity that is so often missing. Just to be clear, I was not accusing you of bad behavior (I don't believe you took it that way). I used you in my example as someone with a depth of knowledge to contrast my ignornace in photography.
Click to expand...

Dear Gary,

No, I certainly didn't take it as an accusation: more as an outrageous compliment. I was thinking of people like the late Geoffrey Crawley, and Sir Kenneth Corfield. Though my knowledge is but a fraction of theirs, I try to echo their humility. Anyone who knows Sir Ken may find 'humility' an unusual description, but once he's established that you understand what he's talking about, he is incredibly open, honest and straightforward. Until then, it's true, he may be a little taciturn, but he's never rude, arrogant or dismissive.

Frances also asked me to pass on her definition of 'educated': 'someone who knows that there are things he doesn't know'.

Cheers,

R.
 
Ha, I remember the abbeviated U.S. version of that joke, which was that the NY Times is read by those who run the country, the Washington Post by those who think they ought to run the country, & the Wall Street Journal by those who own the country.

Roger Hicks said:
There's an old joke (slightly obsolete with the decline of the Times and the the rise of the Sun, which is like the Mirror only a lot more so) to the effect that the Times is read by those who run the country, the Telegraph by those who used to run the country, the Guardian by those who think they ought to run the country, the Financial Times by those who own the country, and the Mirror by those who don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big t*ts.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom