Well, this is personal opinion right? Adam Sandler and Jim Carey had something unique for their time ... if you deem it good or not doesn't matter. Many people thought it was good enough. I never cared for Sandler at all, but Jim Carey was good on In Living Color IMO. (Believe me, I get you. As a fan of underground music for many, many years, the stuff that 'makes it' drives me nuts).
Have you ever thought that you might not be a great judge of talent? Perhaps you think too highly of your opinions. I'm not saying this is true, but it may be worth looking into. Sure there is good stuff on Flickr, but perhaps it is derivative? or not of its time? My point was that you don't get onto Magnum because you did a few good photos. BG might not be your thing, but it doesn't mean he sucks.
Huh? So, you know me know? I tend to not be into mainstream stuff and am deemed negative by many people. However, as I have grown up and left my art school ramblings behind I have learned that just because I'm not into it, doesn't mean I cannot understand why it appeals to a mass market.
There will always be talented people who don't make it. I argue that talent is not enough. I've seen many talented guitar players who are bitter because they think they are better than someone's who has made it. Generally, they are thinking technically better...better chops. However these guitar players have no clue how to make a good song and have no conceptual ideas. Sometimes having ideas and knowing how to move forward with minimal talent is better than having a ton of talent and not knowing what to do with it.
Jim Carey was VERY good on "In Living Colour" (and I like many of his movies too - it's just that he got there through his stand up, which was ...).
If you understand me, and you are a fan of Underground Music and the stuff which "makes it" makes you nuts, then I am happy. You HAVE understood my point.
Yes, I might not be a great judge and you might not and blah, blah, blah, but have you considered that when fame and success are so often predicated by the largest mass of people, what makes you think that the largest masses of people are BETTER judges than us ? I wish that were the case and humanity would be better off, but ...
Maybe the guitar player that doesn't make it, or the Flickr photographers who don't make it are lacking a few components of success (they might be "derivative" - it is at least as possible as it is impossible), but maybe it is just that LUCK is required (timing, knowing the right people etc.), maybe they miss the requisite drive and ambition. Which actually illustrates my original point which is that your comment that he must be good to be in Magnum (or rather that you would like to "suck as bad as him") can be countered by using you argument in reverse and showing it to be fallacious: that those who aren't famous aren't good.
You didn't care for Sandler, nor do I; but in saying that we are WRONG about his lack of talent because many people DO like him is entirely disingenuous. Maybe they are wrong even though they are of greater number. How many men thought the world was round, or there was such thing as gravity ? The world must have been right, and they wrong.
Talent is NOT enough to make it - but once again reverse it - this DOESN'T mean for a second that all who HAVE "made it" are talented.
Really simple concepts here. If people on Flickr aren't recognised because they are "not of their time" then you are agreeing with my point (once again - simple reversal) that there MAY be an element of timing in this - and that someone of lesser talent can become famous (or a part of "Magnum") due to their sense of timing. I like Edgar Allen Poe as a writer and he was barely acknowledged in his time. Talented ? I'd suggest he is a better writer than Stephanie Myer - but maybe she'll be better remembered in the future - who knows ?
PS. I don't think Gilden "sucks" - I said exactly what I actually meant ... I think he is over-rated (these two things are NOT the same) and I think I do not like him from what I have seen and heard of him being interviewed etc.
