Why do people get so excited and angry...

[Ben Z]

Roger, I think there's two parts to your question. One is why the subject engenders so much passion, and the other is why it engenders so much aggression. As to the latter, I don't think it's a matter of people getting excited and angry, so much as people already being excited and angry. The subject becomes irrelevant, one's as good as another as an excuse to vent what's pent up. And I can only hypothesize that it's the perceived physical safety of internet forum interaction that emboldens so many guys to disregard civility, but whatever the reason it sends a lot of interesting discussions/debates swirling down the drain.

 

[SciAggie]

...it sends a lot of interesting discussions/debates swirling down the drain.

Whatever the analysis or causes, that phrase made me smile. I have thought that more than once.

 

[blw]

Yes, please count me as one that was disappointed to see that thread deleted- although I have to admit not being privy to the hostility that eventually arose.

I'd actually appreciate if someone would at least repost the link to the blog or PM it to me, please. This is because I failed to save it in my favorites and sifting through the history on this browser would take a long time at best.

 

[Peter Klein]

Some people operate intuitively. Others like to build a philosophy of their aesthetics, like geometric proofs, everything exactly in place according to the rules. To the Rule-makers, the Intutives are incompetent, disordered and lazy. And other Rule-Makers who have different rules strike them as just plain WRONG! To the Intuitives, analysis just gets in the way. They KNOW what to do even if they can't articulate it, and it looks and feels great. How dare those fascists with their rule-books tell them how to photograph!

One of the hardest things to learn in life is this: "Not everyone thinks like I do." And believe it or not, their different thinking works for them--in art, music or photography, and sometimes even in real life. Unfortunately many people can't see beyond their own version of things, and find the existence of other viewpoints a challenge to their own validity. So they challenge those other viewpoints as if their life depended on it. Which in a way, it does.

Put two people of opposite types in the same room, and you've got a less subtle version of Sartre's "No Exit." Put a bunch of 'em on an Internet forum, and you've got Total War. Have a bit of both approaches in your style, and you're liable to get both factions mad at you.

Fortunately, aesthetics has a lot of wiggle room. You can have a lot of fun making good photographs regardless of your approach. And regardless of what anyone on the Internet says.

--Peter

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I think there's two parts to your question. One is why the subject engenders so much passion, and the other is why it engenders so much aggression. As to the latter, I don't think it's a matter of people getting excited and angry, so much as people already being excited and angry. The subject becomes irrelevant, one's as good as another as an excuse to vent what's pent up. And I can only hypothesize that it's the perceived physical safety of internet forum interaction that emboldens so many guys to disregard civility, but whatever the reason it sends a lot of interesting discussions/debates swirling down the drain.

Dear Ben,

Elegantly stated!

Thanks,

R.

 

[Warren T.]

+1, Very well stated, Peter. Thanks. I would add that if you introduce the additional factors of language and cultural differences, it becomes even more volatile.

It was unfortunate that the thread disappeared because up until it got overheated, there were some really well thought out and interesting responses to the OP.

--Warren

Some people operate intuitively. Others like to build a philosophy of their aesthetics, like geometric proofs, everything exactly in place according to the rules. To the Rule-makers, the Intutives are incompetent, disordered and lazy. And other Rule-Makers who have different rules strike them as just plain WRONG! To the Intuitives, analysis just gets in the way. They KNOW what to do even if they can't articulate it, and it looks and feels great. How dare those fascists with their rule-books tell them how to photograph!

One of the hardest things to learn in life is this: "Not everyone thinks like I do." And believe it or not, their different thinking works for them--in art, music or photography, and sometimes even in real life. Unfortunately many people can't see beyond their own version of things, and find the existence of other viewpoints a challenge to their own validity. So they challenge those other viewpoints as if their life depended on it. Which in a way, it does.

Put two people of opposite types in the same room, and you've got a less subtle version of Sartre's "No Exit." Put a bunch of 'em on an Internet forum, and you've got Total War. Have a bit of both approaches in your style, and you're liable to get both factions mad at you.

Fortunately, aesthetics has a lot of wiggle room. You can have a lot of fun making good photographs regardless of your approach. And regardless of what anyone on the Internet says.

--Peter

 

[Tompas]

(...) One of the hardest things to learn in life is this: "Not everyone thinks like I do." (...)

Yes, wise words. Tolerance. Everyone has a point where he or she becomes intolerant. Sometimes with good reasons. But many many people reach that point far too early, too easy, and too often.

 

[AndySig]

I rather think that the bulk of anger on such matters stems from the psychological area, specifically I suspect that it is an illustration of underlying insecurity. Many of us, perhaps even all of us, like to feel secure in our world view and some of us don't know how to cope with or feel threatened by things which challenge it and which we can't easily refute. I saw a good example on the telly the other week: a Saudi Arabian imam was working himself into an absolute froth about the prospect of women in the country being allowed to drive cars. Now if you think about it, here is a man who has devoted his life to an abstract concept which cannot be demonstrated i.e. the existence of a God which directly interferes in human affairs on a daily basis. He justifies his existence in interpreting how this interference should manifest itself, in this case by banning women from driving. Yet he is surrounded by a world in which the rug is daily pulled from under that view. So logically he should abandon what increasingly looks like an extremist position. The prospect of this makes him feel very insecure, hence his blood pressure going up when he addresses the matter.

Now let us come back to the matter of taking a point of view on matters aesthetic i.e. the taking of views on abstract matters which cannot be demonstrated (actually this is far less abstract than the proposition that there are gods because we can produce photographs, paintings, sculptures etc. which represent an attempt to express aesthetic views in a quite concrete form). If, for whatever personal/emotional/psychological reasons we become very attached to a certain aesthetic view, we might become just as bucolic as the imam if someone clearly doesn't conform with or even - horror of horrors! - formally challenges that view. The answer is, of course, to rationally consider the work or challenge against the aesthetic view we hold and if our view is rationally unsustainable (women do drive cars and the world doesn't collapse, people do sometimes deliberately flout the rule of thirds and yet produce a wonderful image) then we must either abandon or modify our aesthetic view or reduce it from the status of rule to that of guideline.

This is a sign of maturity. It is surely acceptable or at least understandable for a child to dissolve into tears of rage and frustration when a state of insecurity is induced in him ... but for an adult to get worked up as to how a photograph should be taken or as to whether or not ladies should be allowed to drive??? To accept the probably inherent instability of the views by which we regulate our lives is not necessarily an easy ability to acquire but it is surely something towards which every adult should strive. (Mind you, don't get me going on whether or not the milk should go in first when making a cup of tea: it instantly turns me into a Saudi imam.)

 

[Bob Ross]

We have changed from "According to Webster's" to "According to Wikipedia". Kind of makes me feel old.

😀

Also, my brother-in-law is in school for philosophy and the more I talk with him, the more it seems the profession is glorified arguments between egoists. It kind of derailed my long-held view that it was debate of the highest order about things that mattered. No dig on philosophy, but as another poster mentioned...I get more than enough anger at work.

As to the original post, I'm sure it's feelings of self doubt manifesting itself. If you care deeply about something, it's rather easy to get defensive.

Oh yes, "according too" can be a sign of aging.....😉
I was looking up a word (etiology) this afternoon in my unabridged word book of the Random House kind and decided to check the def for aesthetics, which involves dealing with notions of the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime and the comic etc. to establish validity for judgements.....nothing like trying to put objective measurements on sujective qualities.....bokeh anyone?
Anger, at least when I experience it is usually sending me the message "what about me?" Seems to me that when photography is a "self expression", any challenge could generate a message like that.
My word of the day, etiology, seems would apply here, too.
Bob