boring

[ruben]

......So Ruben, if the marketplace confers no value, what does confer it?....

the anwer is always specific, according to which market slice you are talking about, at which given socio-economic and political-hystorical moment, and the specific leading souls interplay.

Furthermore, all these evealuations depend mainly on the eye of the beholder.

But your info about Kertesz, depicts a true artist, a human to admire and follow suit, a rather rare photographer in which talent goes at the same heights as his heart, life wisdom, and honesty to himself.

Being euphoric by success is the most common reaction of most "stars". Maintaining inner honesty along the road is the exception. But who doesn't go along the second path, becomes another empty soul talent at the hands of smart middle salesmen to abuse. Most of the chances are salesmen are aware of "the market" weaknesses.

Everything has a price, including reaching elderness while maintaining the couriosity of the teenager, love for life and for humans, and still being able to improve your creation more and more despite aging.

Deep deep within ourselves, we all face Faust' dilemma. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/237027/Johann-Wolfgang-von-Goethe)

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Sonnar Brian]

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.

Basically, you've been simply denying what everyone tells you to the point of being petulant.

Your images are made from the angle of view normally associated with someone that is depressed and dejected. Always staring down at other people's feet, never into their eyes. Most people do not like that view.

Some labeled it as "boring". Your statements here on this thread and at LUF indicate that you "simply cannot handle the criticism".

I think everyone is wasting their time discussing it with you, it's pointless as your position and attitude are not going to change.

But, this is the philosophy section and it is their time to waste.

 

[back alley]

anyone else see this 'discussion' as one big advertising campaign?

 

[blackwave]

If it takes so many words to convince me a photo is worthwhile, then there is something inherently flawed in the photo. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

anyone else see this 'discussion' as one big advertising campaign?

That's a possibility. A number of people have viewed the work, trying to find the reasons behind this thread and the one at LUF. After viewing the work, I can understand the lackluster response to it.

As to the motive to the thread: I'm more thinking that the OP's ego has been bruised, and he cannot deal with it. That in itself is not boring, but provides some insight into some photographers opinions of themselves and the "misunderstood artist syndrome".

 

[antiquark]

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

But your scenario is flawed. You say that people would think B+W pictures are boring in a color-only world. But how do you know that? The answer is: you don't! Nobody knows that! Nobody CAN know that! You just pulled that assumption out of your arse!

 

[maelswarm]

I thought trolls went out of fashion in the 90s.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Trolls have been replaced by duppies.

Go smoke a bidi.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

(Hundreds of boring photos! Comments welcome!)

 

[35mmdelux]

In 1981 I attended a photo exhibit at the Whitney NYC. The subject was a construction site minus workers in black & white, large format. I found it completely boring. I've asked myself were the fotos about the construction site or where they about the process? It may have been boring, but to this day I remember that exhibit.

 

[pmun]

Basically, you've been simply denying what everyone tells you to the point of being petulant.

Where, on this forum, have I denied my photos are boring? Quote me (several quotes, if it's to the point of being petulant).

I think everyone is wasting their time discussing it with you, it's pointless as your position and attitude are not going to change.

And that's obviously a great source of irritation for you and others. I'm looking to discuss ideas and learn - logic, Kant, Barthes etc, that's why I'm here. If you can't think beyond whether an image is boring or not, that's alright, but you shouldn't attack those who want to think beyond that (especially given that this section is philosophy).

 

[pmun]

In 1981 I attended a photo exhibit at the Whitney NYC. The subject was a construction site minus workers in black & white, large format. I found it completely boring. I've asked myself were the fotos about the construction site or where they about the process? It may have been boring, but to this day I remember that exhibit.

Interesting you should say that, the same thing happened to a poster on the LUF thread (quoted at the begining of this thread). He still remembered a 'boring' and 'pointless' exhibition that he visited years ago. That's why I think there's often more to being boring than meets the eye. I mean, can things be so boring that they become interesting - minimalism?

 

[notturtle]

Interesting you should say that, the same thing happened to a poster on the LUF thread (quoted at the begining of this thread). He still remembered a 'boring' and 'pointless' exhibition that he visited years ago. That's why I think there's often more to being boring than meets the eye. I mean, can things be so boring that they become interesting - minimalism?

No. IMO that's playing with and distorting the definition of interesting. I think you can engage people with boring things but no further than the 'boringness' of them unless there is another point being made in which case it is no longer just about their being boring. make sense?

 

[ruben]

Basically, you've been simply denying what everyone tells you to the point of being petulant.

Your images are made from the angle of view normally associated with someone that is depressed and dejected. Always staring down at other people's feet, never into their eyes. Most people do not like that view.

.......

Dear Brian,
Where is the point separating healthy stamina to maintain a stance, and a kind of unability to analize criticism ? Is it majority vote ? I don't think you think it.

Now your statemant that

"Your iimages are made from the angle of view normally associated with someone that is depressed and dejected. Always staring down at other people's feet, never into their eyes. Most people do not like that view."

So what ?, transforming the mundane into extra-ordinary - isn't that very much the task of a great artist? In my previous post I gave my evaluation that pmun achieved mild results. But I cannot elevate myself into the supreme judge of Art, nor disencourage pmun from further improving his original idea.

Pmun may be unable to take criticism, but I must admit he is equally unable to accept conservatism too. This thread has been full of it as well.

Defying a casual majority at RFF being branded as a bad attitude? Glorifying what most people like ? Are you sure?

Why have you missed the point that pmun has remained correct and restrained along a very hard thread for him, while you know very well that a guy like me for example would be off the limits already at my third post ? Everything is wrong with pmun ?

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[pmun]

But your scenario is flawed. You say that people would think B+W pictures are boring in a color-only world. But how do you know that? The answer is: you don't! Nobody knows that! Nobody CAN know that! You just pulled that assumption out of your arse!

It's called a 'thought experiment' and is often used in philosophy. Somebody's reluctance to take part, as in this case, can be very revealing!

 

[notturtle]

pmun,

There is quite a lot to say on this topic, so here goes in no particular order:

I personally do not find the images interesting or stimulating and the concept did not catalyse thoughts which were engaging. Herein lies the problem with conceptual art from where I am standing: it completely underestimates the intelligence of large swathes of the general public. If a person does not find conceptual art interesting it can be because it does not possess the necessary sophistication or nuances to generate a positive response. It does not have to mean that people have 'failed to engage' or 'failed to get it.' People are titillated by different things, so I accept that some may be stimulated by what you did.

I will use an analogy in literature - Sebatian Faulks. Which was his best book? Ask the general public and most would say Birdsong. Sure, its a superb book, but arguably more mainstream than what came later. I personally felt Human Traces was more powerful because of the exquisite subtlety and breadth of the issues touched upon and the manner in which Faulks did so. The issues themselves are profound to us all and actually very simple. Most of us have thought about them in varying depth, but Faulks was able to work his way through them in a way that (for me) was utterly compelling and forced me to think about every single one of them all over again. I did not have to battle against the current to do so. He led me on that particular journey and I simply could not have walked away without reaching my own end. Present the concept of that book to someone and it could be said that it had been done before, but my goodness it was done well. In this regard, I feel Human Traces leaned further towards the conceptual and Birdsong a little more towards the 'mainstream.'

To apply this analogy to your work: Your work did not compel and it did not force me to think about anything. It did not challenge me against my will or leave me thinking about things in a new light or altered sense of awareness. I will not use the word boring or get into the argument discussing what that means, but to me they were not the converse: 'interesting.'

I feel photography has to be able to stand up on its own two feet i.e. without a narrative or essay. Sure, they can add to the work and help ground it, but if the images lose everything in the absence of words, I am not sure that they can truly be alll they aspire to be. Photography is a visual medium, unless what you have presented here should be described as conceptual art that just happens to use photography as a partial contribution to the concept delivery.

 

[pmun]

No. IMO that's playing with and distorting the definition of interesting. I think you can engage people with boring things but no further than the 'boringness' of them unless there is another point being made in which case it is no longer just about their being boring. make sense?

Not entirely, can you give me an example please?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

>I suppose one of the issues at stake here is the ability to imagine - bring something to
>your viewing and not to expect it all to be spoon-fed to you.

That's a very condescending remark. If that's the attitude that you have of those viewing your work, it's bound to be confrontational.

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

I find the remark condescending, whether made about urbanpaths or anything else. In the context of this thread, the underlying implication is that viewers find things boring because they have no imagination and expect to be spoon-fed.

"Fourtunately (sic) it isn't" is a rejection that the comment could be found as condescending.

 

[antiquark]

It's called a 'thought experiment' and is often used in philosophy. Somebody's reluctance to take part, as in this case, can be very revealing!

I enjoy thought experiments, but your example was flawed.

The proper thought experiment would be "if b&w was invented after color, would people find b&w interesting?"

Your version of the thought experiment was "if b&w was invented after color, then people would find b&w boring!"

In effect, your conclusion is part of the experiment, which simply is not how experiments proceed.

 

[pmun]

I enjoy thought experiments, but your example was flawed.

The proper thought experiment would be "if b&w was invented after color, would people find b&w interesting?"

Your version of the thought experiment was "if b&w was invented after color, then people would find b&w boring!"

In effect, your conclusion is part of the experiment, which simply is not how experiments proceed.

That is not the conclusion as it is about B&W photography, this is about 'boring'. Why don't you just answer it? You seem to be avoiding it. Here it is again for you or anyone else who wants to have a go:

How about this then, say we started out with colour photography and somebody tried to remove the colours. There was uproar as people were so accustomed to seeing colours. The grass was grey, the bright blue sky - dark grey, please!! Even people's faces became grey. This innovative/boring photographer defended their project in terms of tone, contrast and textures. The more s/he did so the more irritated others became. In fact 95% of them said his/her colourless photographs were just boring.

Does that then mean they were boring - simply because they lacked colour and people weren't prepared to except that (after all colour is very interesting)?

 

[antiquark]

Why don't you just answer it?

If it made sense, I would.

In fact 95% of them said his/her colourless photographs were just boring.?

But in my version of the thought experiment, 95% think the b&w pictures are exciting and interesting! How do you answer that?

Do you see what I'm getting at? If the conclusion is part of the experiment, then anyone can reverse the experiment by giving the opposite conclusion.