boring

[Chris101]

Thanks Chris101 for casting a keen eye on some of the ideas here. It's interesting how you applied Barthes so directly to urbanpaths (dare I mention that). A Well written and funny response; I'd give you an A too.

Hmmm. Your essay staked out Barthes' take on photography in every paragraph - it was kinda hard to miss!

A joke among my group is that one cannot finish reading Camera Lucida. I have 12 pages to go and I quit. No one else I know has completed it either. That book defines boring with one long winded, made up word after another. If I want that, I'd rather discuss the Transformers with my 10 year old.

It looks to me as though you responded to Barthes' thoughts photographically: every photograph represents a time from the past which cannot be experienced through the photograph, but only through triggered memories. Thus, mundane photographs are boring to most of us.

Have you sent this work to anyone included in the series?

 

[historicist]

Here's the question: Can photographs (or any other object for that matter) be inherently boring or is it in the way people look at things?

If your'e interested in the nature of aesthetic judgements it might be worth reading the Critique of Judgement (I can just tell this makes me sound like a tosser...). The short wikipedia summary:

The remaining two judgments - the beautiful and the sublime - occupy a space between the agreeable and the good. They are what Kant refers to as "subjective universal" judgments. This apparently oxymoronic term means that, in practice, the judgments are subjective, and are not tied to any absolute and determinate concept. However, the judgment that something is beautiful or sublime is made with the belief that other people ought to agree with this judgment - even though it is known that many will not. The force of this "ought" comes from a reference to a "sensus communis" - a community of taste

 

[pmun]

If it wasn't meant for public consumption, you should not have posted it or password protected it.I had no intention of "exposing" anything personal of yours and looking at a public website is not like I hacked into something you didn't want viewed.

Yes you're right. I'm sorry that I was so harsh and defensive. You have done nothing wrong. I over-reacted.

 

[pmun]

If your'e interested in the nature of aesthetic judgements it might be worth reading the Critique of Judgement (I can just tell this makes me sound like a tosser...). The short wikipedia summary:

Historicist, excellent to bring Kant in. I studied him as an undergraduate several years ago, most of it has left my head, good to get some back again. He is talking about beauty though isn't he? I don't know how he would stand on boredom...anyone?

 

[pmun]

Have you sent this work to anyone included in the series?

No I haven't as I consider the work to be more depictive of humanity rather than any individuals. So those legs stand in for you & I and everyone else. We're all on that path.

 

[antiquark]

I see, so we're back to consensus by the look of it, if enough people think it's boring, it must be boring. My response to that is: have a look at post 31, how would you answer that?

Implausible "what-if's" aside, I really do believe there is an objective scale of photographic quality.

A quality metric could be based on a universal consensus, but it's more useful to base it on a consensus of like minded individuals.

For example, if you wanted an opinion on a landscape, it would make more sense to ask a bunch of landscape photographers, rather than some basketball players.

 

[historicist]

He is talking about beauty though isn't he? I don't know how he would stand on boredom...anyone?

He's talking about the nature of aesthetic judgements in general, of which the judgement of beauty is one, boredom in this case is also an aesthetic judgement.

 

[ruben]

if you're a professional, you probably measure the worth of your work in the marketplace: how often people buy and how much people will pay for your pictures.

if you're an amateur....

With all due respect, how much and how often people buy your pictures, reflects just how much and how often people buy your pictures. Not anything else. Not a single grain of intrinsic quality in your work. Nothing. Absolute zero about what you do.

There are greater photographers out there, not selling because of lack of commercial skills, or intereset. Lack of a good middle salesman. Lack of opportunity and misfortune, and a myriad of other reasons.

Once you learn to perceive the weaknesses of humans in their perception of Art, you can make a lot of money with a minimum of talent.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Fourtunately it isn't. That remark was not made about urbanpaths. It was made about viewing generally (post 5).

At this point, you've been defending yourself for 15 hours.

I doubt you know how your remarks are viewed by others, let alone your photography.

 

[F456]

Ascribing inherent boringness

Ascribing inherent boringness

It follows that it is possible for a picture to be boring and that if someone thinks it's interesting, or just not boring, they've got it wrong or missed something. They've missed its inherent 'boringness'. Do you think that is the case?

No, it could mean that that picture should not have been ascribed inherent boringness after all. The form of inherent boringness could exist but whom do we trust to assign it correctly to this picture or that?

As with spellings or definitions of words in a dictionary there is the conflict between what most people think and what the best people think (I know how arrogant that sounds but you know what I mean).

Regardless of the above, I like the 'not the only person in step' approach best. Or hold a private parade of one. If that sounds silly, I suspect it is what many good photographers do anyway. For instance, I feel more than OK about quite a few of my own photos and find viewers or subjects that may buy or ask for copies; however, when I die I'd expect most of my stuff to be thrown out as I doubt if its intrinsic unboringness is enough to retain interest to many who weren't part of an event or scene I photographed.

Best wishes,
Tom

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I'm not sure if anyone else posted the link to the Leica User Forum that spawned this carryover discussion to RFF.

Here it is:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/88999-non-classic-shots-m8.html

At least it's not anywhere in page 3 of the 16 hours discussion.

Not often that an LUF discussion gets picked up here. May put some of this into perspective.

 

[ruben]

Dear pmun,

I have seen your images, read most of this thread and a bit of the leica forum one, and I would like to make the following comments.

In my humble opinion the Seoul images are more dynamic than those in London or Brighton. By tilting your camera there, you produced a very nice effect, that happened to join very varyied floor patterns.
The slide show is very effective as well, as it gives me the feeling of being myself moving behind the portrayed persons.

In princinple your project, or concept, or whatever it may be called, has nothing intrinsically wrong, or lack of interest. Some of the topics I have already said, some I may be missing, and there is another factor - the people protrayed - that for some reason did not provoke in me curiousity. This is not a negative criticism but a point I leave underlined in my mind. Basically you have undertaken a risky challenge, for which I salute you.

On the other hand, to my humble opinon, there are too many images to sustain tension in my viewing. Or in other words, if you like, I would cut the body of work by two thirds, or input an additional giantic amount of work in the streets, as to have more special images totalling the same number of images you display now. By repeating the viewing angle, you both underline the differences but trap yourself as photographer into the "obligation" of delivering a wider variation.

I think you have every right to defend your work, but I don't see how possibly can you enforce acceptance or satysfaction, or even rude reaction. If you are convinced about what you do - continue doing it, as the day will come in which your elaborated work will find its audience.

But on the other hand, if you dare to swim against the current don't expect many candys. As you can see in this thread, it is a self defeating exercise. Yet, if you keep the necessary curiousity, you could profite from the bad criticism too.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[MCTuomey]

With all due respect, how much and how often people buy your pictures, reflects just how much and how often people buy your pictures. Not anything else. Not a single grain of intrinsic quality in your work. Nothing. Absolute zero about what you do.

There are greater photographers out there, not selling because of lack of commercial skills, or intereset. Lack of a good middle salesman. Lack of opportunity and misfortune, and a myriad of other reasons.

Once you learn to perceive the weaknesses of humans in their perception of Art, you can make a lot of money with a minimum of talent.

Cheers,
Ruben

Ruben, by "professional" I mean someone who makes his or her material living from taking and marketing photographs. I should have been clearer, sorry. If you accept that definition, and you don't have to accept it, I think it follows that what people will pay and how often people will buy one's photographs is much more meaningful than "absolute zero."

Or so my commercial photographer friends tell me.

Point: Kertesz "stayed true to his vision" when he and his wife emigrated from Paris to the U.S., laboring under considerable adversity to make ends meet from his pictures. Some of us applaud his choice to do so. I like to think he and his wife would have been happy to have sold a bit more work at better prices in the 25 or so years he worked in relative obscurity before his late rediscovery. He would have been able to travel more, maybe visit his brother in Argentina every year or two. I think similarly of Diane Arbus when she was alive.

I can't judge the truth of your remark about human weakness in assessing art. It does seem elitist and cynical. I prefer not to turn my nose up at people who put framed velvet Elvises in their living rooms, for example. Not that I'm egalitarian. Actually, I wouldn't mind if they put a framed print bought from me in the place of Elvis. But my work is probably boring to Elvis fans. And who can blame them for thinking so? In the U.S. very few people receive a liberal education of the type that encourages sophisticated judgments of art. If they did, then their judgment of my photos might be even harsher than just boring. 🙁

So Ruben, if the marketplace confers no value, what does confer it? Your judgment? Someone else's judgment? If I and only I believe in the intrinsic value of my work, is it value at all? Sounds like aesthetic onanism to me. I better get to work. 😉

 

[pmun]

You are being too sweet, the adjective that comes to mind is 'pathetic'.

It's a shame that you find it 'pathetic'. You asked me some questions, I took the time to think about them and respond. I consider that a civil and decent thing to do. Isn't it?

I really don't know why people are so up set here, it's only a project, they are only ideas.

 

[pmun]

At this point, you've been defending yourself for 15 hours.

I doubt you know how your remarks are viewed by others, let alone your photography.

Well I've been defending ideas and postions because this is the philosophy section of the forum. Are you uncomfortable with that?

As for how my remarks are viewed, I'm sure that will vary from person to person. There's a chance I'm speaking absolute tosh, that's why I take part in discussions - to find out.

 

[pmun]

No, it could mean that that picture should not have been ascribed inherent boringness after all. The form of inherent boringness could exist but whom do we trust to assign it correctly to this picture or that?
Best wishes,
Tom

Indeed if we accept that boringness is in the object, who decides that?

Some people here have suggested that it's about consensus. That seems to be the most acceptable approach here so far. If enough think so then it must be so. But I find this position very limiting because it stifles innovation.

 

[pmun]

Dear pmun,

I have seen your images, read most of this thread and a bit of the leica forum one, and I would like to make the following comments.

In my humble opinion the Seoul images are more dynamic than those in London or Brighton. By tilting your camera there, you produced a very nice effect, that happened to join very varyied floor patterns.
The slide show is very effective as well, as it gives me the feeling of being myself moving behind the portrayed persons.

In princinple your project, or concept, or whatever it may be called, has nothing intrinsically wrong, or lack of interest. Some of the topics I have already said, some I may be missing, and there is another factor - the people protrayed - that for some reason did not provoke in me curiousity. This is not a negative criticism but a point I leave underlined in my mind. Basically you have undertaken a risky challenge, for which I salute you.

On the other hand, to my humble opinon, there are too many images to sustain tension in my viewing. Or in other words, if you like, I would cut the body of work by two thirds, or input an additional giantic amount of work in the streets, as to have more special images totalling the same number of images you display now. By repeating the viewing angle, you both underline the differences but trap yourself as photographer into the "obligation" of delivering a wider variation.
Cheers,
Ruben

Ruben - thanks for such a balanced critique. It's interesting that you found Seoul more dynamic; that may be because of the intense but soft light (one of the reasons for simplifying everything is to let such qualities come through). The Brighton ones were taken with an M8 and the rest - Ricoh GRD2.
Thanks again.

 

[pmun]

Implausible "what-if's" aside, I really do believe there is an objective scale of photographic quality.

Easier to put it aside that to answer it. As plausible as it may be, it's also revealing.

 

[F456]

Pmun,
Just a personal observation: I like discussing philosophical matters and I like photography. But I do each to have a break from the other, and when I look at a photograph my reaction is instinctive and immediate. My opinion or pleasure in a picture may change with time, but I'm not analysing on a Socratic level. That's not to say I will never try to explain why I like a picture.

Speaking now more objectively: as for consensus and boringness is it in the nature of this sort of discussion that we can question and maybe invalidate all sorts of hypotheses, knocking them out one by one, without getting very close to a real answer?

Best wishes,
Tom

 

[pmun]

Pmun,
Speaking now more objectively: as for consensus and boringness is it in the nature of this sort of discussion that we can question and maybe invalidate all sorts of hypotheses, knocking them out one by one, without getting very close to a real answer?

Best wishes,
Tom

Tom, I would say that was the nature of philisophical discussion. There isn't a 'real answer' as such, but hopefully we learn by exploring the issues.