Why do people get so excited and angry...

bigeye said:
I don't think it's an argument in philosophy. Many people, and particularly men, measure their self worth by their work. It's directly attached to their identity. If criticized roughly (easy in this anonymous medium), they lash. Work can be valued, but web words are cheap.

The excitement and anger are a communication issue. (I suppose web 'manners' may someday evolve and mature.)

.
Click to expand...

Or indeed at all, in some cases. It's very easy to be thin-skinned when you are on the receiving end (I have been, and I am sure most of us have), and it is equally easy to fail to spot how someone could read the wrong meaning into a comment when you are writing it. In many ways, thanks to the considerable civility of most people on RFF, I've learned a good deal more here about writing than I have about photography.

Overall, I am sure that you are right, though I fear that your last sentence may be (extremely) wishful thinking.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger: I think among people who care about style, aesthetics is intertwined with (confused with?) self-image. My father was an art dealer and his appraisals of colleagues or collectors who had no taste were most unforgiving. For what it is worth, I think people can make brand-identification a feature of their self-image too. Hence verbal warfare over Canon vs. Nikon (or any A vs. B debate).

Ben
 
Roger, I read that thread, and it was like fingernails on a chalk board.

But I'm not angry...I'm NOT...I'm NOT....I'm NOT!
 
While I was studying mathematics and physics at university I made quite a few visits to art galleries when I needed a break. I deliberately chose to look at abstract images and even more so; images that I could not easily comprehend. For me, this was like therapy for my brain, because it gave me the opportunity to look at something and just absorbing, without having the need or obligation to understand and dissect it.

I find there is quite a mental challenge to look at images distinctly different in style and subject from those i take myself; if I want to evolve, I seek what is different from what I know, so I tend to appreciate images and ideas conveying a point of view different from my own.

In music, there are a number of tribute bands, trying to faithfully reproduce every single note of their favourite band - I wonder if there are any photographers out there trying to do the same kind, like "Hey, look at this image, it is exactly like this image by HCB. I chose a suitable model, the same street, the same time of day etc... It is like a photocopy of the HCB image!"
 
In my case, I love truth.

I don't really think a grid made of lots of lines explains great photography or helps create it, and I expressed my opinion. Then, in case I was wrong, I asked about great photographers having done it.

Nothing. Insults. Thread deleted. OK.

Obviously, if I participate, I expect interesting talk or learning things I haven't heard of, even if the general idea seems weak.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Roger Hicks said:
Well, you'd have to apply 'merely' to arithmetic and thence to the whole of mathematics in that case, because that's the parallel I'm drawing. Both philosophy and its subset aesthetics are questions of using mental tools, and if that isn't a process, what is?

After all, what is the aim or end of philosophy? Surely, to discover something, be it Truth, Beauty, Morality or a convenient rule of thumb. Philosophy is in its very nature thinking about things, so it is meaningless to pretend that it is an end in itself, i.e. that there is no 'thing' to think about.

Of course, the thing you think about may be philosophy itself: about whether there is a ding an sich, whether existence precedes essence, and so forth. To do this, however, you are still using philosophical tools to analyze a concept, and besides, it is a fairly small part of philosophy (though of course its more enthusiastic advocates would argue that it is all of philosophy).

Quite apart from that, there are Marxist philosophers, feminist philosophers, moral philosophers, you name it: the word 'philosophy' is so flexible as to be a great deal less meaningful than my use of the word 'process'. Shakespeare got it right when he said that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in philosophy: I omit the 'your' because I take the reading that 'your' in 'your philosophy' is like the 'your' in 'your average photographer', i.e. it does not imply that this is Horatio's own specific philosophy.

Finally, unless aesthetics is a means to an end, the end in question being the understandiing of beauty, and unless that end can be replicated and applied (not necessarily by the philosopher, but by an artist), I find hard to imagine an emptier subject.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Oh my, where to start. Firstly, as I said, if by 'process' you simply mean something which employs mental capacaties, then sure, philosophy is a process. But then it's really just a pleonasm that doesn't really say much.
Secondly, as I explained, it's not the 'process' part I took issue with but the 'personal' part as the context you used it in implied that topics in aesthetics are really not up for debate as everyone has their own aesthetics (akin to everyone having their own taste). Again, I do not disagree that this can be the case but aesthetics is not just that. Philosophical aesthetics is very much a field of debate and discussion and there is value in that (unlike, e.g., discussing one's taste in women, which is truly not open for debate).

To make it short, I'm saying that there's a value in discussing aesthetics no matter how it might or might not influence our own picturetaking process. Aesthetics is a means to understand something about art not a means to create better art.

I do not know why you're bringing up Kant quotes or other ontological terms in this discussion as it clearly serves no purpose here. With all due respect, it just seems like an attempt to show off. I'd be happy to discuss any of these topics thoroughly with you on another occasion.

There are indeed Marxist philosophers, feminist philosophers and also slim, fat, tall and short philosophers. And, believe it or not, the field of philosophy is almost as diverse as the people engaged in it. Again, I do not understand what your constant inserting of quotes adds to the discussion other than boasting your ego.

Aesthetics is first and foremost just a term used to put certain topics of philosophical interest into one category. The field itself is very broad and the way of thinking about these topics varies greatly. Of course all philosophy is thinking and thinking is a means to an end, the end in question being the understanding of that which one started thinking about. It is, however, not necessarily a means of understanding something in order to change the way certain things are. Let's take an aesthetic concern like defining art (which, grantedly, is amongst the most useless of concerns). You can either come up with a normative definition (saying what art ought to be) or you can look at what kind of things we regard as art and then try to find a definition that includes everything that is art and excludes everything that isn't. If you come up with an adequate non-normative definition you will have clarified the concept of art but you this clarification of concept is not a means to an end, it's an end in itself. Surely, many artists have been inspired by philosophical thought (be it Platon, Kant, Diderot, Hegel, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, etc. etc.) butz then again, artists get inspired by all sorts of things in the world.
 
Harry S. said:
I think a lot of the best work comes from people who are very passionate. (read: excitable, angry, guru-quoting). I think that kind of opinionation belongs in this hobby. If you create something youre proud of, or have created a sensibility youre passionate about; i think its completely reasonable to fight for it or protect it.

But there are ways to go about this, most arguements not as considered as they could be.

I have a strong opinion about my work and what I look for in the work of others, but I try to avoid name-dropping famous people if I can help it.
Click to expand...

whilst i agree, in part, with what you are saying. the difference for me is that while i am on the extreme end of passionate i would rarely, if ever, protest one's negative opinion of my work. they are entitled to be wrong and who am i to point it out?

the rest of what you said is spot on.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The current thread was prompted by some of the comments in the thread entitled On Advanced Classical Composition . Some of that looked quite angry to me, and a lot of it was fairly excited.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I went looking for that thread this morning and was sad to see that it had been deleted. OTOH, I thought some of the posts in that thread were negative and insulting in tone, so perhaps it's not surprising that the thread was deleted. The OP there was trying to share some thoughts and start a discussion abt aethestics and photography; people are free to disagree, of course, but some failed to check their egos at the door.
 
Roger Hicks said:
... thanks to the considerable civility of most people on RFF, I've learned a good deal more here about writing than I have about photography.
Click to expand...

This is definitely true for me. I am learning that in discussions such as the thread mentioned, word choices are very important. Somtimes when a response to one of my posts goes in a direction that surprises me, I often can go back and see that I was not as clear as I could have been in my statement.
 
It was not about ego... I'm nobody. If having cursed a career in photography or having worked on photography or having loved it for long makes people think saying those simple things means I consider them important or exclusive or they mean an ego problem, some people are clearly wrong, and I gently correct them...

It was about asking for them but getting no real arguments to consider a grid interesting from my point of view, as I insisted... And about asking if someone knew about good photographers having used that kind of grid. It seemed and seems it's all a too imaginary theory as other forum members wrote too... But considering an imaginary grid a bad idea on an internet forum is not something that should offend the grid theory creator, and much less someone giving a link... Maybe RFF could create a "Praise Only Forum" (not being ironic at all!) or set rules stating only totally positive opinions on every idea can be wrote here, and of course I'd participate respecting that rule... I even wrote I find useful and logical the rule of thirds and the golden mean... And aggression seems common sometimes on RFF when concepts are discussed... Maybe I was trained to discuss -in the best sense that word has- when I was a student, and that's why I like to do it and to write and read arguments to get to new points... But I find absurd some posts here: a few posts back a forum member said the mentioned thread was fuzz about nothing from people with no lives and all that deserves no comment... That member is wrong about both things and made a comment :) and was aggressive and offensive and who cares? Members accept it and mods accept it... I agree an unknown grid theory isn't too important as others have stated, but freedom and respect definitely are.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Somebody seemed to be unused to disagreement in general. Anybody who finds something cool and wants to share it hopes people will like it and is disappointed when people aren't as enthusiastic as they are, but I guess some find it harder to handle than others. What I find bothersome in discussions of aesthetics is when people whose livelyhoods rely on people's acceptance of their authority in aesthetic matters expect the same acceptance from me, though I'm not paying.
 
Last edited:
Jamie123 said:
Oh my, where to start. . .
Click to expand...

Just as one philosopher may be informed by Marxism, and another by feminism, so may a photographer be influenced by different aesthetic ideas: to a photographer, it is 'just personal'. To pretend that aesthetics must confined to philosophical discourse, following strict lines laid down by 18th century German philosophers, is hardly defensible: consider, for example, the Aesthetic Movement of the late 19th century.

I fear, however, that further argument between us is unlikely to prove fruitful. You no doubt recall the story of two fishwives screaming abuse at one another from first floor windows on opposite sides of the street: they could never agree, because they were arguing from different premises.

Cheers,

R.
 
Dear Dave,

A definition I always liked is that while a good ol' boy throws his empty beer cans into the back of his pick-up truck, a redneck just throws them out of the driver's wndow.

And I remember a cartoon I saw many years ago, of a young couple looking horrified in a Denny's or some such. Their young son was peeking into the next booth and saying, "Hey, dad, you're right. His neck is red."

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Dave,

A definition I always liked is that while a good ol' boy throws his empty beer cans into the back of his pick-up truck, a redneck just throws them out of the driver's wndow.

And I remember a cartoon I saw many years ago, of a young couple looking horrified in a Denny's or some such. Their young son was peeking into the next booth and saying, "Hey, dad, you're right. His neck is red."

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Excellent! Maybe we should start a "just for fun" thread to see how the definition varies depending on location.:p The more I think about it, it's all in the state of mind as your first example clearly shows. I grew up in the country way before the term was invented. We were just plain "country folks".
 
I must of missed all of the drama of that thread.

What on earth could of caused such a spat about applying classical composition theory to a bunch of photographs?

and since we are on the topic of rednecks... out here, people take pride in that label.
 
dave lackey said:
Excellent! Maybe we should start a "just for fun" thread to see how the definition varies depending on location.:p The more I think about it, it's all in the state of mind as your first example clearly shows. I grew up in the country way before the term was invented. We were just plain "country folks".
Click to expand...

Dear Dave,

The French for 'redneck' is 'beauf', short for 'beau-frère' or 'brother-in-law'. I believe it dates from the 1970s; I have a book somewhere by the cartoonist who invented the term, which is now firmly in the French vocabulary.

Cheers,

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