cc wanted for nudes

[mansito]

or you are just trying to provoke a reaction.

LOL it looks like it worked.

 

[kbalaz]

I have to say that was one of the best point counter point discussions I have read in sometime. Every point was completely valid and spot on.

 

[jpmalohesr]

n/t

 

[bobn2]

I think that much of what you say above pinpoints the "problem" with much landscape in photography today. It is landscape for the sake of landscape, and there's nothing new under the sun...you'd think that with digital cameras putting such powerful image-making into so many hands that the overall bar would have been raised for all photography across the board, but I think much the opposite has happened. As more and more people get into photography as part-timers and dilletantes without knowledge or respect for what has come before, the work has on average declined, and moreover what people are accepting of has declined.

If we limit our sample space just to National Geographic, you can see it for yourself. If you dig up National Geographics of the mid-90s, say what you want about the artistry of the shots, but at least everyone agreed that they demonstrated technical mastery. The lighting was obviously immaculate and the printing was at a very high level. Nowadays you're like to see a spread that looks like it could have been shot with a pocket camera with lighting no better than your average Strobist.

That doesn't mean people should stop shooting landscapes, though. I take the same opinion as you do...it's fine, it doesn't offend me, but it doesn't exactly inspire me either so don't expect a positive response just because you were able to get to a reasonably scenic location. Unlike the parent poster, though, I can think of two reasons to take up amateur landscape photography (besides the obvious..."zOMG bewBIEZ!!!").

1. Study. Using light to explore the geological form. Improve technique, study composition, form, etc. But this kind of approach should be done with some kind of goal in terms of what you're trying to learn or explore.

2. Communication. This is about the artistry. Maybe the focus of the photo is to communicate something and that's best done using a geological form. The landscape is incidental, it just so happens that it's an element that enhances what you're trying to say. This isn't so much a "landscape" photo as it is a photo that happens to include scenery. That scenery could be prominent if the concept expressed is correspondingly prominent ("vulnerability," for example). So it's a tool like any other.

There's nothing wrong with rambling fun if neither of the above strikes you as the way you want to do it...but this does bring up issues of objectification and requires you to answer a lot of tough questions once you recognize the context surrounding the work you're creating. Some people ignore these questions--ok, but this work will never advance beyond a certain point artistically. Others engage them, and usually end up moving into 1 or 2. Others stay solidly in this area and turn it into a business (National Geographic, for instance). Nothing wrong with that, and there is a certain commercialized art to the kind of work that is the highest example of this kind of thing...guys like Charlie Waite are definitely masters of what they do.

There's a tendency, I think, to confuse what this work actually is like versus what it seems like. It's a bit like being a commercial airline pilot...sounds glamorous, but at the end of the day, you're basically a blue collar driver. You drive a plane instead of a truck, but once the sheen wears off, there's not much else that's different (I've heard this from actual airline pilots). For me, personally, after shooting the 100th naked canyon, I think I'd have a tough time getting out of bed in the morning to go to work.

(Having said that, I think it's natural for people to focus on the geographical form rather than the built environment. Even if you're taking an artistic approach, it is human to spend more time focused on the things you naturally find beautiful, and pretty much everyone finds the female form beautiful. The built environment can be interesting, and I certainly don't mind photographing it, but I'll simply never have the same visceral, unconscious response to it that biology dictates towards scenery.)
--
Bob

 

[severoon]

That's cute, but what I said doesn't apply to landscapes. If you read what you had after your search and replace, you can see it doesn't make sense.

Still--cute.

 

[bobn2]

That's cute, but what I said doesn't apply to landscapes. If you read
what you had after your search and replace, you can see it doesn't
make sense.

Still--cute.

I think most of it does. Which bits don't
--
Bob

 

[shaktipalooza]

More than anything they highlight her breast enhancements, and not in a good way.

Poses aren't interesting.
--
http://www.largelifephotography.com

5D sample gallery
http://mrs-h.smugmug.com/gallery/2539780#137075551

http://www.largelifephotography.com/photos/395881518_R7mNG-S.jpg

 

[severoon]

That's cute, but what I said doesn't apply to landscapes. If you read
what you had after your search and replace, you can see it doesn't
make sense.

Still--cute.

I think most of it does. Which bits don't
--
Bob

Point out any part of your search'n'replace that I wrote that actually applies to nudes, and I'll explain how it doesn't make sense when you sub in "landscape".

 

[bobn2]

That's cute, but what I said doesn't apply to landscapes. If you read
what you had after your search and replace, you can see it doesn't
make sense.

Still--cute.

I think most of it does. Which bits don't
--
Bob

Point out any part of your search'n'replace that I wrote that
actually applies to nudes, and I'll explain how it doesn't make sense
when you sub in "landscape".

OK, explain how this bit doesn't apply to 'landscape':

I think that much of what you say above pinpoints the "problem" with much landscape in photography today. It is landscape for the sake of landscape, and there's nothing new under the sun...you'd think that with digital cameras putting such powerful image-making into so many hands that the overall bar would have been raised for all photography across the board, but I think much the opposite has happened. As more and more people get into photography as part-timers and dilletantes without knowledge or respect for what has come before, the work has on average declined, and moreover what people are accepting of has declined.
or this bit:

If we limit our sample space just to National Geographic, you can see it for yourself. If you dig up National Geographics of the mid-90s, say what you want about the artistry of the shots, but at least everyone agreed that they demonstrated technical mastery. The lighting was obviously immaculate and the printing was at a very high level. Nowadays you're like to see a spread that looks like it could have been shot with a pocket camera with lighting no better than your average Strobist.
or this bit:

That doesn't mean people should stop shooting landscapes, though. I take the same opinion as you do...it's fine, it doesn't offend me, but it doesn't exactly inspire me either so don't expect a positive response just because you were able to get to a reasonably scenic location. Unlike the parent poster, though, I can think of two reasons to take up amateur landscape photography (besides the obvious..."zOMG bewBIEZ!!!").
or this bit:

1. Study. Using light to explore the geological form. Improve technique, study composition, form, etc. But this kind of approach should be done with some kind of goal in terms of what you're trying to learn or explore.
or this:

2. Communication. This is about the artistry. Maybe the focus of the photo is to communicate something and that's best done using a geological form. The landscape is incidental, it just so happens that it's an element that enhances what you're trying to say. This isn't so much a "landscape" photo as it is a photo that happens to include scenery. That scenery could be prominent if the concept expressed is correspondingly prominent ("vulnerability," for example). So it's a tool like any other.
or this:

There's nothing wrong with rambling fun if neither of the above strikes you as the way you want to do it...but this does bring up issues of objectification and requires you to answer a lot of tough questions once you recognize the context surrounding the work you're creating. Some people ignore these questions--ok, but this work will never advance beyond a certain point artistically. Others engage them, and usually end up moving into 1 or 2. Others stay solidly in this area and turn it into a business (National Geographic, for instance). Nothing wrong with that, and there is a certain commercialized art to the kind of work that is the highest example of this kind of thing...guys like Charlie Waite are definitely masters of what they do.
or this:

There's a tendency, I think, to confuse what this work actually is like versus what it seems like. It's a bit like being a commercial airline pilot...sounds glamorous, but at the end of the day, you're basically a blue collar driver. You drive a plane instead of a truck, but once the sheen wears off, there's not much else that's different (I've heard this from actual airline pilots). For me, personally, after shooting the 100th naked canyon, I think I'd have a tough time getting out of bed in the morning to go to work.
or this:

(Having said that, I think it's natural for people to focus on the geographical form rather than the built environment. Even if you're taking an artistic approach, it is human to spend more time focused on the things you naturally find beautiful, and pretty much everyone finds the natural world beautiful. The built environment can be interesting, and I certainly don't mind photographing it, but I'll simply never have the same visceral, unconscious response to it that biology dictates towards scenery.)
--
Bob

 

[keithk42]

--In the first shot it appears that the colours are off.
The bra seems to be coming off in the last shot. Not that that's a
bad thing, but it doesn't look quite right.

Jim Rickards

It looks quite right to me. I like that shot.

Keith

 

[Robert Bedwell]

I will not judge them from an ethical or moral viewpoint because my views in this area are not a benchmark. I am not offended by nudity but with the overwhelming access to any type of body images today I hardly think that yours offer anything different to appeal to the mass viewers. The suggestion of nudity combined with a soul searching connection between the camera and the subject would be something much more effective in my opinion.

 

[severoon]

...so I'll just point up one part rather than waste time on the entire thing...

"If you dig up National Geographics of the mid-90s, say what you want about the artistry of the shots, but at least everyone agreed that they demonstrated technical mastery. The lighting was obviously immaculate and the printing was at a very high level. Nowadays you're like to see a spread that looks like it could have been shot with a pocket camera with lighting no better than your average Strobist."

Go get a National Geographic from the mid-90s, tear out a bunch of the landscape pictures you find. Go get a modern one and do the same. Make sure you track which issue the images came from and there are no identifying dates on either.

Ask people to choose, based on technical quality (is it sharp, exposed well, etc), which images came from which era. When you get enough people in your sample space, you'll see that there is no discernible agreement. (I can easily do same for magazine I cited wrt nudes.)

Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about "lighting" a landscape in the same way one would light a nude.

Next time, you can avoid embarrassment like this if you refrain from behaving this way in a public forum.

 

[bobn2]

...so I'll just point up one part rather than waste time on the
entire thing...

to be read as 'on reading it now, theres only one part I've got any sort of argument against'.

"If you dig up National Geographics of the mid-90s, say what you want
about the artistry of the shots, but at least everyone agreed that
they demonstrated technical mastery. The lighting was obviously
immaculate and the printing was at a very high level. Nowadays you're
like to see a spread that looks like it could have been shot with a
pocket camera with lighting no better than your average Strobist."

Go get a National Geographic from the mid-90s, tear out a bunch of
the landscape pictures you find. Go get a modern one and do the same.
Make sure you track which issue the images came from and there are no
identifying dates on either.

Ask people to choose, based on technical quality (is it sharp,
exposed well, etc), which images came from which era. When you get
enough people in your sample space, you'll see that there is no
discernible agreement. (I can easily do same for magazine I cited
wrt nudes.)

Try the same with a magazine showing nudes. The same is true in terms of technical quality. It's a bit easier to spot because of the fashion differences (hair, body art, so on). The fact that you original statement was poorly founded doesn't make the translation to landscapes any less applicable. Translate it to landscapes and its equally applicable. However, I do seem to enter into a lot of discussion with people who think the only way to shoot landscape is set the lens at f/16 and snap away. In the old days, landscape photographers were at the forefront of creative use of DoF.

Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about "lighting" a landscape in
the same way one would light a nude.

Of course it does. Much of successful landscape depends on getting the lighting right. Of course, you have to wait for it, or plan your shoot at a time when you know the lighting will be what you. Thats why a lot of landscapers need to get up very early. Have you never logged at a scene, made a note that it's going to work in dawn light, or summer mist or whatever, and gone back when the light is right? You see, I do do landscape, too.

Next time, you can avoid embarrassment like this if you refrain from
behaving this way in a public forum.

Behaving in which way? Putting together cogent arguments? That does seem something that is frowned upon in DPR.
--
Bob

 

[severoon]

...so I'll just point up one part rather than waste time on the
entire thing...

to be read as 'on reading it now, theres only one part I've got any
sort of argument against'.

ur readin it rong.

Try the same with a magazine showing nudes. The same is true in terms
of technical quality. It's a bit easier to spot because of the
fashion differences (hair, body art, so on).

Sorry, I meant to specifically say "technical quality" having to do with sharpness, resolution, and other objective technical measures.

Oh wait, I did.

The fact that you
original statement was poorly founded doesn't make the translation to
landscapes any less applicable. Translate it to landscapes and its
equally applicable. However, I do seem to enter into a lot of
discussion with people who think the only way to shoot landscape is
set the lens at f/16 and snap away. In the old days, landscape
photographers were at the forefront of creative use of DoF.

Fine art work should show evidence of the photographer's technical mastery of the medium. Choices should be intentionally made to best communicate the point of the work, and the content of that communication should be compelling in some way, whether purely visual, humorous, impactful, whatever.

Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about "lighting" a landscape in
the same way one would light a nude.

Of course it does. Much of successful landscape depends on getting
the lighting right. Of course, you have to wait for it, or plan your
shoot at a time when you know the lighting will be what you. Thats
why a lot of landscapers need to get up very early. Have you never
logged at a scene, made a note that it's going to work in dawn light,
or summer mist or whatever, and gone back when the light is right?
You see, I do do landscape, too.

There is a difference in the control exercised over lighting a person and how one finds a landscape lit, and so there are different considerations when judging the technical aspects of each.

I'm not the final arbiter of taste, which is why I'm assiduously avoiding any discussion of artistic merit here. I'm talking technical. If you take an unintentionally blurry picture, that is a mistake. If you use a Lensbaby or intentionally blur an image to achieve a particular effect, that is not a mistake. If the work obviously belies an accumulation of various ignorances about how to best put a camera to use, then it probably won't find its way into a major publication. That is, unless it's within the last decade or so, and it's a female nude...in that case, it seems it's a toss-up.

Next time, you can avoid embarrassment like this if you refrain from
behaving this way in a public forum.

Behaving in which way? Putting together cogent^H^H^H^H^H^H snarky
arguments using only the search'n'replace feature of my text editor? That does
seem something that is frowned upon in DPR.

There, fixed that for you.

 

[bobn2]

...so I'll just point up one part rather than waste time on the
entire thing...

to be read as 'on reading it now, theres only one part I've got any
sort of argument against'.

ur readin it rong.

I don't think so, I got it dead on. If you'd been intellectually honest in your arguments you'd have responded to all the points you challenged me to make, rather that say loftily that your challenge was a waste of time.

Try the same with a magazine showing nudes. The same is true in terms
of technical quality. It's a bit easier to spot because of the
fashion differences (hair, body art, so on).

Sorry, I meant to specifically say "technical quality" having to do
with sharpness, resolution, and other objective technical measures.
Oh wait, I did.

I simply do not believe that you have actually ever done the experiment you relate. It would seem a pretty strange thing to do speculatively (today I'll see if people are better at selecting old glamour images that they are landscapes). If you ask people to choose correctly they take it as a challenge and use any hints, whatever you ask them to select on. Anyone who's really done these tests for serious purposes knows that. That's why such things as fashion hints, that say clearly whether something is old or new, are relevant.

The fact that you
original statement was poorly founded doesn't make the translation to
landscapes any less applicable. Translate it to landscapes and its
equally applicable. However, I do seem to enter into a lot of
discussion with people who think the only way to shoot landscape is
set the lens at f/16 and snap away. In the old days, landscape
photographers were at the forefront of creative use of DoF.

Fine art work should show evidence of the photographer's technical
mastery of the medium. Choices should be intentionally made to best
communicate the point of the work, and the content of that
communication should be compelling in some way, whether purely
visual, humorous, impactful, whatever.

I don't care a fig what 'fine art' should do. I'm not engaged in 'fine art' and neither are the majority of landscapers. We just want to take good photographs.

Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about "lighting" a landscape in
the same way one would light a nude.

Of course it does. Much of successful landscape depends on getting
the lighting right. Of course, you have to wait for it, or plan your
shoot at a time when you know the lighting will be what you. Thats
why a lot of landscapers need to get up very early. Have you never
logged at a scene, made a note that it's going to work in dawn light,
or summer mist or whatever, and gone back when the light is right?
You see, I do do landscape, too.

There is a difference in the control exercised over lighting a person
and how one finds a landscape lit, and so there are different
considerations when judging the technical aspects of each.

No one ever denied that. What you said was "it doesn't make sense to talk about "lighting" a landscape in the same way one would light a nude". Of course, landscapes are not lit the same way, but I think I've successfully debunked your actual statement, rather than the one you're trying to make it out to be now.

I'm not the final arbiter of taste, which is why I'm assiduously
avoiding any discussion of artistic merit here.

I'd not like to be around you when you aren't assiduously avoiding something! What was all that about fine art just above??

I'm talking
technical. If you take an unintentionally blurry picture, that is a
mistake. If you use a Lensbaby or intentionally blur an image to
achieve a particular effect, that is not a mistake. If the work
obviously belies an accumulation of various ignorances about how to
best put a camera to use, then it probably won't find its way into a
major publication. That is, unless it's within the last decade or so,
and it's a female nude...in that case, it seems it's a toss-up.

So your proposition now is that people who take photographs of nudes are taking blurrier photographs than are landscapers. Or that technical standards for publishers of nudes are lower than for those of landscapes. If that's what you think, you're on another planet. The top level glamour mags are incredibly choosy with respect to technical quality. The others, and web sites less so. Exactly the same is true in landscape. It's not hard to find an outlet for an inept chocolate box landscape, but the top outlets are very selective. You're letting your prejudices drive your view of reality.

Next time, you can avoid embarrassment like this if you refrain from
behaving this way in a public forum.

Behaving in which way? Putting together cogent^H^H^H^H^H^H snarky
arguments using only the search'n'replace feature of my text editor? That does
seem something that is frowned upon in DPR.

There, fixed that for you.

Anyone observing this discussion can decide who is being 'snarky' and who is being cogent. In any case, you still have not demonstrated that anything you said (which I edited rather more extensively and creatively than a cut and paste job) applies any differently to landscape as opposed to nude photography.
--
Bob

 

[severoon]

ur readin it rong.

I don't think so, I got it dead on. If you'd been intellectually
honest in your arguments you'd have responded to all the points you
challenged me to make, rather that say loftily that your challenge
was a waste of time.

I didn't say it "loftily". Magnanimously, sure. Nobly, ok. "In an elevated fashion," I might even be persuaded to allow. Not "loftily," though. If you think that, u dfinitly red it rong.

I simply do not believe that you have actually ever done the
experiment you relate. It would seem a pretty strange thing to do
speculatively (today I'll see if people are better at selecting old
glamour images that they are landscapes). If you ask people to choose
correctly they take it as a challenge and use any hints, whatever you
ask them to select on. Anyone who's really done these tests for
serious purposes knows that. That's why such things as fashion hints,
that say clearly whether something is old or new, are relevant.

Oh yea?

I don't care a fig what 'fine art' should do. I'm not engaged in
'fine art' and neither are the majority of landscapers. We just want
to take good photographs.

Most people that want to take good photographs care what fine art should do, even if they can't or don't want to do it themselves...because the core of fine art is communication. There's nothing wrong with doing work that doesn't communicate to anyone outside yourself. It's not very difficult or challenging to do work that only speaks to oneself--the definition of indulgent--and it's not very worthwhile if your goal is to advance your skills, but there's certainly nothing, like, morally or ethically wrong with it.

Of course, landscapes are not lit the same way, but I think
I've successfully debunked your actual statement, rather than the one
you're trying to make it out to be now.

I have to agree...you do seem to think that.

I'm not the final arbiter of taste, which is why I'm assiduously
avoiding any discussion of artistic merit here.

I'd not like to be around you when you aren't assiduously avoiding
something! What was all that about fine art just above??

All art can be judged on both its objective and subjective merits. The former is generally called "appreciation" and the latter "enjoyment." I am asserting that these are different things.

I may taste a wine and note that acidity and sweetness is in perfect balance and flavors of raspberry and mint are distinct and ring clear as a bell on the palate. Clearly, the winemaker knows what he's doing and has made a wine that demonstrates great ability to handle the process. This is objective--experienced tasters will generally agree that a wine is well-balanced or has a strong flavor profile. I may also note that I happen to hate both raspberry and mint--though the wine is a wonderful expression of both, I would never open that bottle and enjoy it at home myself even as I might recommend it to others. This is subjective and based purely on preference, and the fact that I don't like the flavors expertly expressed in the wine does not reflect poorly on the winemaker in any way. Whether I happen to like a particular wine is independent of whether I can appreciate it or not.

I've witnessed that with increasing frequency, people seem to be confusing objective with subjective when it comes to naked zOMG bewbiez!!! Moreover, people seem to easily confuse whether they like nude females with whether or not they like particular photos of a nude females. I have not witnessed the same thing when it comes to landscapes or any other kind of photo that comes to mind. I have not seen the same thing when it comes to landscapes...even though you have made strong assertions several times now that landscapes are the same in this respect, I do not agree.

Anyone observing this discussion can decide who is being 'snarky' and
who is being cogent. In any case, you still have not demonstrated
that anything you said (which I edited rather more extensively and
creatively than a cut and paste job) applies any differently to
landscape as opposed to nude photography.

I guess I don't feel responsible for "demonstrating" it to you. I feel like my obligation ends at simply suggesting it, and I leave it as an exercise for the reader to go figure out on your own whether you agree. I usually listen to other people and then think for myself. I use a process called "internal dialog" that can unfold over minutes, days, or even months.

I'm not saying this is the only correct way, but that is how I do it, and it's what I recommend to others when asked.

 

[bobn2]

bobn2 wrote:
I didn't say it "loftily". Magnanimously, sure. Nobly, ok. "In an
elevated fashion," I might even be persuaded to allow. Not "loftily,"
though. If you think that, u dfinitly red it rong.

I'd hate to see you when you're not being magnaminous.
You said:

'Point out any part of your search'n'replace that I wrote that actually applies to nudes, and I'll explain how it doesn't make sense when you sub in "landscape". '
I did.
You didn't.

Loftily or not, you baled out of the discussion when you realised you couldn't make good on your challenge.

Anyone who's really done these tests for
serious purposes knows that. That's why such things as fashion hints,
that say clearly whether something is old or new, are relevant.

Oh yea?

Yea. Have you done the experiment you claim, or are you just speculating on what you think would happen?

Most people that want to take good photographs care what fine art
should do, even if they can't or don't want to do it
themselves...because the core of fine art is communication. There's
nothing wrong with doing work that doesn't communicate to anyone
outside yourself. It's not very difficult or challenging to do work
that only speaks to oneself--the definition of indulgent--and it's
not very worthwhile if your goal is to advance your skills, but
there's certainly nothing, like, morally or ethically wrong with it.

Pretentious claptrap, IMHO. I'd like to see if your portfolio fits with your 'fine art' pretensions.

Of course, landscapes are not lit the same way, but I think
I've successfully debunked your actual statement, rather than the one
you're trying to make it out to be now.

I have to agree...you do seem to think that.

With some justification.

All art can be judged on both its objective and subjective merits.
The former is generally called "appreciation" and the latter
"enjoyment." I am asserting that these are different things.

If you want to start a discussion about the objective merits of art, I think you'll find it very difficult to sustain. You'll fall at the first hurdle, when required to produce your definition of objectivity.

I may taste a wine and note that acidity and sweetness is in perfect
balance and flavors of raspberry and mint are distinct and ring clear
as a bell on the palate. Clearly, the winemaker knows what he's doing
and has made a wine that demonstrates great ability to handle the
process. This is objective--experienced tasters will generally agree
that a wine is well-balanced or has a strong flavor profile.

I think you need to look up the definition of 'objective' in a dictionary. You are arguing yourself onto a slippery slope here. Produce me an objective definition of 'fine wine' and I might admit you're onto something.

I've witnessed that with increasing frequency, people seem to be
confusing objective with subjective when it comes to naked zOMG
bewbiez!!! Moreover, people seem to easily confuse whether they like
nude females with whether or not they like particular photos of a
nude females. I have not witnessed the same thing when it comes to
landscapes or any other kind of photo that comes to mind. I have not
seen the same thing when it comes to landscapes...even though you
have made strong assertions several times now that landscapes are the
same in this respect, I do not agree.

Your observations are completely subjective, and coloured by your own prejudices, with not a hint of objectivity. It takes more than a little skill, on behalf of both photographer and model, to produce an image that really is erotic. Whether or not the viewer acknowledges that skill is another matter. On the other hand, it is all too easy to make an image of a nude person with no erotic content at all. Nakedness, of itself, is not erotic.

Landscape tends to have the same concerns. We mostly have an innate sympathy and desire for the natural environment. Find a piece of beautiful scenery, and it should be possible to inculcate a 'wow' reaction from most people who view it. Unfortunately, it takes a bit more craft than that. If you haven't observed the 'wow' reaction from landscape, you're not doing it right.

I guess I don't feel responsible for "demonstrating" it to you. I
feel like my obligation ends at simply suggesting it, and I leave it
as an exercise for the reader to go figure out on your own whether
you agree. I usually listen to other people and then think for
myself. I use a process called "internal dialog" that can unfold over
minutes, days, or even months.

You have the responsibilty in that you chose to pick out a genre of photography for a generalised criticism, which in my view was groundless. Once you do that, you have a responsibility to justify that criticism.

--
Bob

 

[BillCarr]

I may taste a wine and note that acidity and sweetness is in perfect
balance and flavors of raspberry and mint are distinct and ring clear
as a bell on the palate.

Please don't drink and post.

 

[severoon]

Yea. Have you done the experiment you claim, or are you just
speculating on what you think would happen?

Yes. I've done it. Not as a formally controlled double-blind study, because I couldn't get funding . But well enough to know with a fair degree of certainty that this is what happens.

Most people that want to take good photographs care what fine art
should do, even if they can't or don't want to do it
themselves...because the core of fine art is communication. There's
nothing wrong with doing work that doesn't communicate to anyone
outside yourself. It's not very difficult or challenging to do work
that only speaks to oneself--the definition of indulgent--and it's
not very worthwhile if your goal is to advance your skills, but
there's certainly nothing, like, morally or ethically wrong with it.

Pretentious claptrap, IMHO. I'd like to see if your portfolio fits
with your 'fine art' pretensions.

I've done a few things I personally consider fine art, you may not. (You might if you didn't know it was mine, but now that we've had this discussion...)

Whether I can produce fine art is not at issue here, though. The defn exists outside of both of us.

All art can be judged on both its objective and subjective merits.
The former is generally called "appreciation" and the latter
"enjoyment." I am asserting that these are different things.

If you want to start a discussion about the objective merits of art,
I think you'll find it very difficult to sustain. You'll fall at the
first hurdle, when required to produce your definition of objectivity.

There are some objective merits of art. To say there are not means that there is simply no basis for judgment at all that two or more people can agree upon.

Certainly you recognize the difference between family vacation snapshots from Uncle Ed and Ansel Adams' work. Certainly you would expect nearly everyone else to see the difference as well. Clearly there is something objectively better about AA's photos, then.

I'm not making the pretentious claim here that you're making it out to be. I'm simply saying that there are some ways to compare works that most everyone recognizes. Besides exceptional cases, a tack-sharp photo is better than an accidentally out of focus one. Stuff like that.

I think you need to look up the definition of 'objective' in a
dictionary. You are arguing yourself onto a slippery slope here.
Produce me an objective definition of 'fine wine' and I might admit
you're onto something.

objective - existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality

Everyone generally agrees that Quintessa is better than Two Buck Chuck. Do you think that's a coincidence of subjectivity, or a measurement of some reality that exists outside the tasters?

Your observations are completely subjective, and coloured by your own
prejudices, with not a hint of objectivity. It takes more than a
little skill, on behalf of both photographer and model, to produce an
image that really is erotic. Whether or not the viewer acknowledges
that skill is another matter. On the other hand, it is all too easy
to make an image of a nude person with no erotic content at all.
Nakedness, of itself, is not erotic.
Landscape tends to have the same concerns. We mostly have an innate
sympathy and desire for the natural environment. Find a piece of
beautiful scenery, and it should be possible to inculcate a 'wow'
reaction from most people who view it. Unfortunately, it takes a bit
more craft than that. If you haven't observed the 'wow' reaction from
landscape, you're not doing it right.

Yea, all true. My point is that the bar for publication of nudes is recently much lower than it used to be. Not so for landscapes.

You have the responsibilty in that you chose to pick out a genre of
photography for a generalised criticism, which in my view was
groundless. Once you do that, you have a responsibility to justify
that criticism.

I wasn't criticizing the genre, I was criticizing the people that are happy to apply low standards to it.

 

[Lyle From Canada]

Threads like this crack me up. Peoples fear of the human form is down right ludicrous imo.