What if Great Photographers submitted their work to online photographic forums?

Carrigman

Naturally, we here on Boards.ie are far too smart and sophisticated to make the kind of comments that might be made on other sites. You know, the kind of comments that these famous photos got on this (all too real) parody:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Dades

Class

Two of those images were featured in the Genius of Photography doc last night.

Thirdfox

lol... but this does raise an interesting point - if "ordinary" people do not like the work of "masters" is that the fault of the "stupid" people or the "masters"?

There are times when an art critic is talking about pieces of art (be it oil paints, photographs or "modern" art) and I think to myself - "IT'S JUST A PIECE OF BLUE CANVAS!!!!" But then again I probably don't have the right eye to appreciate "true" art.

Had this debate with my English professor over poetry - we had to pretend to love it and coo over the way the poet used the words...I didn't believe a word of it.

Another interesting question would be what if these great photographers were in the present day - what would they think of photoshop, digital, colour photography?

Thirdfox

Sorry templeathea - I just realised I wrote into the wrong post and deleted the post - I've reposted in the New York ideas thread here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54440861#post54440861

sorry for making your thread look so out of place

edit: oh you deleted it too...

bradnailer

That's food for thought,I've got a National Geographic book of portraits and some of them are pure ***** if I posted them they'd get slated, beauty is in the eye of the beholder
It's like movie stars you get shoved in the lime light enough people your the dogs..............., they're not all good actors.

Marcus

LOL! very good!

templeathea

Thirdfox wrote: »

lol... but this does raise an interesting point - if "ordinary" people do not like the work of "masters" is that the fault of the "stupid" people or the "masters"?

There are times when an art critic is talking about pieces of art (be it oil paints, photographs or "modern" art) and I think to myself - "IT'S JUST A PIECE OF BLUE CANVAS!!!!" But then again I probably don't have the right eye to appreciate "true" art.

Had this debate with my English professor over poetry - we had to pretend to love it and coo over the way the poet used the words...I didn't believe a word of it.

Another interesting question would be what if these great photographers were in the present day - what would they think of photoshop, digital, colour photography?

I am impressed by people doing stuff I either could not do or have never imagined doing. Which means I can't stand Damien Hirst et al.

I bet Man Ray would have loved PS

Fenster

First: I find the entire exercise by the Online Photographer to be incredibly smug and insulting. You can ask one hundred people to give their opinion on a photo and receive one hundred utterly different replies; sitting on high and mocking that just because you precieve these works to have classical value is to me offensive.

Second: Taking these precieved values - and the works - to assorted photography forums and taking out of context the resulting comments is again insulting. They do nothing more than make the community look stupid.

Short version: The guy who wrote the article is an asshole troll.

While I'm making bullet points: Knick knack paddywhack, give the dog a bone.

sineadw

Did anyone read this link in the responses? mario's bike on Flickr.. Maybe you all know it well (the post I mean, not the shot) but I think its an interesting debate in the end. Is a masterpiece a masterpiece just because a certain person took it? I don't necessarily mean the shot featured here - I like it a lot. I would have to wholeheartedly agree with the Blue Canvas thing. Has anyone else seen Art School Confidential? Had me in tears laughing - summed it up perfectly for me...

JMcL

Fenster wrote: »

First: I find the entire exercise by the Online Photographer to be incredibly smug and insulting. You can ask one hundred people to give their opinion on a photo and receive one hundred utterly different replies; sitting on high and mocking that just because you precieve these works to have classical value is to me offensive.

Err... I think you missed the point of the article, not to mention the big red SA (satire alert) at the top.

Fenster wrote: »

Second: Taking these precieved values - and the works - to assorted photography forums and taking out of context the resulting comments is again insulting. They do nothing more than make the community look stupid.

IMHO, often enough the community doesn't need any help whatsoever to make itself look stupid - just dip into any random series of threads on DPReview.

Fenster wrote: »

Short version: The guy who wrote the article is an asshole troll.

Sorry? Mike Johnson is one of the few almost always readable columnists whether online in TOP, or in his columns in "Black And White Photography"