The Great Digital Swindle...

[Roger Hicks]

Honestly I don't think you are paying attention (well of course you are aware of them) to men like the outgoing Mayor of NYC, who used his money almost solely for power. Now of course one could make the argument that he did not earn the money to achieve power, but the power came as a byproduct of the money. And probably that would be correct, the money poured in on him, and one day he did realized that it was a source of enormous power? Seems the scenario? . . . Defining what motivates the wealthy seems at best a slippery slope -- where many have slipped.

When it comes to "paying attention", I really don't think that there is that much value in paying attention to regional warlords, whether they be Emperor Bokhassa of the Central African Republic or for that matter the Mayor of New York City. The principal means of the acquisition of power are violence and money. As Unger points out, and the two examples illustrate, the two are to a large extent interchangeable. My suggestion is that both are symptoms of a failure of democracy and the rule of law. If the opposition can be bought or intimidated, we have, effectively, a failed or failing state.

As for Rosa Parks, I think she would forgive me if I said that she was the head on the boil. If it hadn't been her, it would have been someone else, quite soon. The whole system was rotten. That is the fundamental flaw in many examples of the Great Woman (or Great Man) theory of history. Mussolini was far from a Great Man. But he arrived in the right place at the right time (for him). Much the same could be said of Berlusconi,

"Excess" humans are so defined principally at the whim of those who are lucky enough or vicious enough not to fall into the category they condemn. I am reminded of the counter to "illegal immigration": "there is no such thing as an illegal human being."

Sorry for the delay in replying but I went out today to buy some groceries and (sure enough) "my" Leica M arrived while the house was unoccupied for the first time in 10 days. Fortunately I have an honest neighbour (and now an M typ 240 as well).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rodchenko]

New toy? 😉

 

[Scrambler]

New toy? 😉

But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn



And didn't I have fun (NOT) when confirming that quote in Uni - it's in volume 3 of "The Gulag Archipelago." And now on Wikiquotes. Where was THAT when I "needed" it 20 years ago?

 

[peterm1]

The thing that bugs me has been the slow rise in technology - as marketed at least. (If you can call it that but bear me out). Consider for a moment the last, what - lets say, 12 years of ponderous growth in megapixel density of sensors. Much of this at least seems nothing more than deliberate and planned obsolescence - 1 megapixels this year, 1.2 in 18 months, then 2 and so on to the point where we now have cameras with sensor resolution that approaches or maybe exceeds that of film. Yes there have most certainly been technology breakthoughs - like the movement from CCD to CMOS technology but for the most part I am convinced that some of that slow, slow growth from tiny to large pixels numbers could have been leap-frogged if the right financial incentives were in place to do it. But of course if you are going to sell an X megapixel camera this year it begs the question of what will you sell next year. And so companies have stuck to the tried and tested approach of small incremental changes, all the time being very conservative so that each "development" is a relatively small non-game-changing one.

 

[Sparrow]

The local warlord or mayor is just a very personal relationship. Perhaps nothing more, but clearly as you point out, know one, know them all.

The Civil rights movement in the US, was clearly grass roots (as any movement can be), It was a long time before support from those in power did finally come. I do agree Rosa Parks, Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney, did not think to be great, but they are not quite so easily described. I too do not ascribe to the great man theory, but there are heros.

Well that is cheery news, I hope you feel suitably guilty for having it.😀

... well the thread has clearly been dragged way off topic now ... you could, possibly, be forgiven for closing it now or shuffiling off its mortal coil to the off-topic section. Marketing's place in photography subverted to nationalism and US civil rights ... nicely done sir

 

[Roger Hicks]

... well the thread has clearly been dragged way off topic now ... you could, possibly, be forgiven for closing it now or shuffiling off its mortal coil to the off-topic section. Marketing's place in photography subverted to nationalism and US civil rights ... nicely done sir

If not terribly comprehensibly, as the post you quote appears to have vanished. But in its absence, what does a warlord have to do with a logical argument? Except as an example of power gained through violence or money?

Question: meretricious advertising is not violent but does involve money. How then do manufacturers sell new features that are of no consequence?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

New toy? 😉

Nah... Review camera. Hence quotation marks around "my".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

An aside on "meretricious"

It comes from "meretrix", she who earns or is worth [her price]

Hence, a whore.

What could this possibly have to do with advertising?

EDIT: same root as "merit" as in "meritocracy".

Cheers,

R.

 

[hepcat]

I think it was the psychology of consumerism that was at the forefront of my mind when I posted the original question but it strikes me that the philosophical ramifications fit entirely within the scope of the original question, FWIW.

I've read all eight pages of posts in this thread so far... a very interesting read.

In the U.S., consumerism has been building since immediately post WWII. Technology advanced at an unprecedented rate as markets expanded to fill the pent up demand for consumer goods. The electrification of the country caused an explosion of demand for goods that ran on electricity. The electric companies pushed cheap power. The auto, oil, and aircraft industries drove a boom in government-owned infrastructure. We are living in an era of mature consumerism.

All that said, I'm convinced that what REALLY drove the consumerism economy was U.S. Rubber and Keds shoes. Every kid that was raised in post-war America through the 1970s knew that Keds would make them run faster and jump higher... and no other brand would do. Yep, Keds advertising directly and irrevocablcy was the single causalality in the resolution and ISO wars in the digital photo industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtOi96OYkz0

Did Keds kids really run faster and jump higher? Of course not, but their commercials sure sold a LOT of shoes. Camera advertising today sells a LOT of cameras. Canon's "Shoot like a Pro" ad campaign of a few years ago comes immediately to mind...

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Well if you really wanted to go far afield, you could discuss the industrial monopolies? Yeah I deleted that post to you, seemed pointless. But Sparrow was busy replying.

Sorry, you lost me on this one. Warlords > industrial monopolies? The biggest jump yet in this thread.

My own principle here is that if I post something that later seems pointless or irrelevant, I try as a matter of principle to leave it. I may have made a fool of myself, but at least I've been an honest fool. Anything posted in haste and left for more than a minute or two is a fair target. If I'm later caught out, I try to say, "Yes, I was wrong" rather than trying to introduce a new argument without explanation.

The catch here is that most of the time, most of us can follow our own trains of thought. We owe it to others, however, to explain what those trains of thought are, if we are challenged: either that, or admit brain-fade, defeat or simple disinclination to engage further for whatever reason.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've read all eight pages of posts in this thread so far... a very interesting read.

In the U.S., consumerism hTas been building since immediately post WWII. Technology advanced at an unprecedented rate as markets expanded to fill the pent up demand for consumer goods. The electrification of the country caused an explosion of demand for goods that ran on electricity. The electric companies pushed cheap power. The auto, oil, and aircraft industries drove a boom in government-owned infrastructure. We are living in an era of mature consumerism.

All that said, I'm convinced that what REALLY drove the consumerism economy was U.S. Rubber and Keds shoes. Every kid that was raised in post-war America through the 1970s knew that Keds would make them run faster and jump higher... and no other brand would do. Yep, Keds advertising directly and irrevocablcy was the single causalality in the resolution and ISO wars in the digital photo industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtOi96OYkz0

Beautiful! The perfect combination of rational argument and parody! Thanks!

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

On warlords and kindred regional despots: Rob Ford in Toronto, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24858250

Cheers,

R.

 

[alistair.o]

Ade, please let me know if any bit, or even, all of the following edit of your original post offends in any way and it will be delt with"

Statement:-

"... people were taking fantastic digital photographs ten years ago ..."

What do you think of the above statement: True or False?


Question:-

"... Are we all slaves to the photographic industry's marketing people,even though the actual impact on the quality of our photography is likely to be negligible at best.

A. Are we all slaves?

B. If we do buy the latest, will the impact on our picture making be negligible (be honest) - True or False?

C. In your answer to B. are you alluding to a tool bought 10 years ago or 10 weeks/months etc.?

OP's Last question:-

Why is that?..." i.e. the summation of where we stand

I see the OP's post as quite straight forward in the thinking processes.

 

[Keith]

Forget digital ... life is a swindle.

We learn at a very early age that you can always get a bigger TV, larger house in a better street, a car with coffee cup holders, better jogging shoes, faster food. There is always something better just around the corner whether you need it or not!

The digital upgrade phenomenon is just a part of the consumption treadmill we live on ... we can get off it by choice but few actually do!

 

[alistair.o]

Forget digital ... life is a swindle.

Your not helping m' cause of bringing some focus to the US of A 😀

 

[Keith]

Your not helping m' cause of bringing some focus to the US of A 😀

But you can only focus with a split screen ... I though that was decided! :angel:

 

[Sparrow]

If not terribly comprehensibly, as the post you quote appears to have vanished. But in its absence, what does a warlord have to do with a logical argument? Except as an example of power gained through violence or money?

Question: meretricious advertising is not violent but does involve money. How then do manufacturers sell new features that are of no consequence?

Cheers,

R.

Sorry, I was rushing to post before there had been too many edits and deletions.

Answer: They, the large camera corporations seem to be simply using human nature:-

1) ... start a rumour with some ephemeral phrase (out of interest I just got "Make a Camera valuable by putting it in an exquisite frame" from the top of my Oblique Strategy cards)

2) ... allow people time to speculate as to the nature of the camera. We see this here each time this happens, people construct fantasise cameras individually and collectively so that the Wondercam is asocatied with every possible attribute.

3) ... drip feed with care details of specification and a few pictures to keep up the speculation and engage people to promote and defend the Wondercam (I spot them on here each time one comes out, but I bet I don't spot the good ones)

4) ... announce spec, photos and release date, confirm that they will be in short supply take pre-orders (whatever they are) then defend the product via the press and their online promoters.

... I find more interesting the question why, with a preponderance of joint stock corporations and the hegemony of global capitalism one would have to consider that the large brands no longer exist to make cameras, cameras are just a byproduct part of the core process of making money

 

[bobbyrab]

... I find more interesting the question why, with a preponderance of joint stock corporations and the hegemony of global capitalism one would have to consider that the large brands no longer exist to make cameras, cameras are just a byproduct part of the core process of making money[/QUOTE]


Was there a time then when the large brands purpose was to make the best cameras and making money was a byproduct? Sorry if I've misread the question.
I've followed this thread with interest and the question I'd like to ask those who feel swindled, how do you, or did you make a living? I would imagine the vast majority of us do so from something that is not a necessity to anyone's core requirements, and ultimately we mostly live by other peoples consumption one way or another.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Forget digital ... life is a swindle.

We learn at a very early age that you can always get a bigger TV, larger house in a better street, a car with coffee cup holders, better jogging shoes, faster food. There is always something better just around the corner whether you need it or not!

The digital upgrade phenomenon is just a part of the consumption treadmill we live on ... we can get off it by choice but few actually do!

I was lucky in this. My parents tended to live in cheaper houses than they could "afford"; neither of them cared for fancy cars (my mother loved Minis); and my mother was a great devotee of auctions, so that (for example) our dining table was late Georgian and the chest of drawers in my bedroom was late Victorian -- both mahogany. I learned to appreciate both quality and functionality at an early age. With such an upbringing I was well immunized against the virus of consumerism.

The interesting thing is that most (not all) of my close friends have a similar distaste for consumerism, but they often came at it from different directions.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bobbyrab]

Sorry Roger, just trying to get a handle on what is consumerism, so if you buy a new car that's cheaper than the more expensive one you could afford then it doesn't count, and antiques are exempt as well? Interesting stuff.