Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: PeterAit on November 19, 2013, 07:45:17 am
-
Remember my ill-considered suggestion to ban this word? Now, the Oxford Dictionary has named it Word of the Year!
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53598532/ns/local_news-raleigh_nc/#.Uotc4PLwh20
-
You had no chance of getting selfie banned, it's like getting people to stop saying "I'm on the train" into their cell/mobile phones.
Cheers,
-
You had no chance of getting selfie banned, it's like getting people to stop saying "I'm on the train" into their cell/mobile phones.
Cheers,
Well, I never!
That's yet another thing I have yet to say! I think the last time a train drew me into its bosom must have been 1980 or 1981. It was a long, cold run from Glasgow to London. Of course, it would have been difficult to have reached anyone anywhere in those days; only Star Trek had the technology. I have yet to understand why I hadn't flown instead, but there must have been a good reason now lost to history.
Rob C
-
The OED (and English generally) has a long tradition of being descriptive, not prescriptive. If enough people use it, it's a word. Trying to get a new "word" banned won't work; the reference to it is itself another instance of its use and thus contributes to the eventual legitimization. The best tactic is not to use a word that you don't like, but the odds are long that that tactic will work. Embrace the flexibility, it's an advantage.
-
The OED (and English generally) has a long tradition of being descriptive, not prescriptive. If enough people use it, it's a word. Trying to get a new "word" banned won't work; the reference to it is itself another instance of its use and thus contributes to the eventual legitimization. The best tactic is not to use a word that you don't like, but the odds are long that that tactic will work. Embrace the flexibility, it's an advantage.
Exactly! A dictionary is supposed to describe what the language *is* and not what the language is *supposed to be." Except, maybe, in France!
-
Exactly! A dictionary is supposed to describe what the language *is* and not what the language is *supposed to be." Except, maybe, in France!
I think there is a difference between English language and slang. I'm happy to accept 'selfie' & friends as slang.
Rob C
-
Slang words and expressions are in the OED too. Sometimes a slang word stays slang for a long time, and sometimes it becomes a "real" word really quickly. It depends on its use.
-
I think there is a difference between English language and slang. I'm happy to accept 'selfie' & friends as slang.
As far as I can tell "slang" is an artificial construct created by class-conscious arbiters who wished to create and enforce a standard language. Language, however, is simply what we use to communicate with. If a word is an effective communicator it'll stick regardless of the efforts of arbiters, otherwise it won't.
-Dave-
-
As far as I can tell "slang" is an artificial construct created by class-conscious arbiters who wished to create and enforce a standard language. Language, however, is simply what we use to communicate with. If a word is an effective communicator it'll stick regardless of the efforts of arbiters, otherwise it won't.
-Dave-
Well, yeah.
There used to be school marms who would rap your knuckles if you split an infinitive or ended a sentence with a preposition. There were never any such "rules", none to this day, but some continue to believe there are. Luckily, the language doesn't care about arbiters, it moves on regardless.
-
Well, in this day and age, I'm surprised to read folks knocking the upholding of standard English.
I'd have imagined that the more people read and experience, then the more they would realise the importance of precise meaning, and in order to get to that point, much depends on verbal and written construction, inflection and universally understood terminology.
I'd also be surprised to learn that much law gets written in slang; must be a reason why not...
As for snobbery - I don't think so; however, such a concept could certainly be used as a fine banner for the rabble-inspired lowering of standards, especially when political stances are injected into the fact; it happens in everything else, so perhaps language can't reasonably expect to escape unscathed either.
Personally, I'm happy to use either, but I do try to understand the difference surrounding appropriateness of each.
Rob C
-
Language is a moving target all right, but one thing you have to remember is that we think with language. In general, there's nothing wrong with slang in casual conversation, but slopping language up with garbage words like "selfie" tends to lower the precision of thought. I keep coming back to atrocities like the supposedly competent columnist who writes: "The fact that he didn't understand the issue begs the question: why didn't he?" "Begs the question" implies that the question contains an assertion. The classic example is: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" When the meaning of “beg the question” becomes obfuscated by this kind of sloppy ignorance, we’ve lost some of the subtlety that lets English convey a lot of meaning with a few words. If you can’t say, “It begs the question” to indicate that the question is loaded with an assertion, then you have to go all the way ‘round Robin Hood’s barn to explain what’s wrong with the question. Communication is what allows a society to exist, so language is important stuff.
-
The first recognised use of the term - shorthand for a self-portrait photograph - was in 2002 on an Australian online forum.
(http://www.canberratimes.com.au/lifestyle/life/dont-be-surprised-if-you-see-a-selfie-in-the-oxford-dictionarys-next-edition-20131119-2xs4t.html)
Selfie is typical of Australian contraction of words; Aussie = Australian, Tassie = Tasmania and cossie = (swimming) costume. I never knew that I spoke so much colloquial language until I travelled overseas. I still remember Jimmy Conners when he first started commentary on the Australian Open, he kept on asking the other commentators what they were talking about. The advantage for Australians is that we have been brought up on British and American/Canadian television so we are aware of your/their slang.
Cheers,
-
... garbage words like "selfie"...
I think, Russ, what can be likened to garbage is the concept that the word refers to, not the word itself. I think the word is the right one to describe not just any self-portrait (which in itself is a long-standing and respectable tradition) but the current narcissistic trend and an obsession with "living in the moment."
-
I think, Russ, what can be likened to garbage is the concept that the word refers to, not the word itself. I think the word is the right one to describe not just any self-portrait (which in itself is a long-standing and respectable tradition) but the current narcissistic trend and an obsession with "living in the moment."
Just when I discover a new, secret, vice I'm told it's probably narcissistic!
I discovered a while ago that the 'moment' is all we truly have; the problem with the philosophy of such recognition, though, is that we can't usually know just how many 'nows' we are going to be allowed, which can pose critical issues for the quality of any such future 'nows'.
As often happens, this thought takes me back to sayings of those older and wiser than I, my late father-in-law, for one, who used to tell the tale of the gentleman standing at the town crossroads, his pinstripes clearly the worse for wear, the placard suspended from his neck proclaiming: My Calculations Were Wrong.
Rob C
-
... slopping language up with garbage words like "selfie" tends to lower the precision of thought...
"Selfie" is a new word for a new phenomenon. As such, it enhances the precision of expression, and hence of thought. "Self-portrait" has a broader meaning. "Begs the question" is a phrase which used to have a precise meaning which many, perhaps most, people now using it don't understand. Language always moves in both directions, with precision being gained in one place and lost in another. There never was a golden age in which all words and phrases had a precise meaning. Precision of expression and thought always has been and always will be a personal achievement using the imperfect instrument of language.
-
You had no chance of getting selfie banned, it's like getting people to stop saying "I'm on the train" into their cell/mobile phones.
Personally I always thought those complaining about people saying 'I'm on the train/bus" were the actual buffoons. Yes you can see the person speaking on the phone, because you are on the vehicle with them. But because it a mobile phone the person on the other end has no idea where the caller is. So letting someone know where you are is a perfectly sensible/normal thing to say if for example your partner is getting tea ready for when you get home, you're meeting someone or maybe you are letting your Mum know you did get the bus on time...etc.
-
Sadly for those who dislike the term selfie, it's already morphed further.
Welcome to the 'belfie'. The bum selfie. Yes really.
Though the Daily Mail in it's rush to find an excuse to show pictures of women backsides did an article on the supposed new trend started by Kim Kardashian [like it had never been done before] and did so with a bunch of photos taken by someone other than the subject. Duh!
Probably didn't pay the photographers for them either.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/21/article-2470075-18CD217400000578-332_634x977.jpg)
-
"Selfie" is a new word for a new phenomenon. As such, it enhances the precision of expression, and hence of thought. "Self-portrait" has a broader meaning. "Begs the question" is a phrase which used to have a precise meaning which many, perhaps most, people now using it don't understand. Language always moves in both directions, with precision being gained in one place and lost in another. There never was a golden age in which all words and phrases had a precise meaning. Precision of expression and thought always has been and always will be a personal achievement using the imperfect instrument of language.
Yup. Nail. Head. Hit.
But obviously the language people spoke when they where young is like the music of their time, far better than the new fangled crap that youngsters currently speak/listen to.
-
Well, in this day and age, I'm surprised to read folks knocking the upholding of standard English.
So what exactly is standard English then Rob?
I'd have imagined that the more people read and experience, then the more they would realise the importance of precise meaning, and in order to get to that point, much depends on verbal and written construction, inflection and universally understood terminology.
And 'Selfie' is a pretty precise way of describing 'an amateurish self portrait taken by the subject whilst still holding the camera either pointing back at themselves at arm's length or one of themselves reflected in a mirror which also shows the camera being used'. as opposed to 'self portrait', which is a much vaguer term.
-
Sadly for those who dislike the term selfie, it's already morphed further.
Welcome to the 'belfie'. The bum selfie.
Looks more like a "buttsie" to me.
-
1. So what exactly is standard English then Rob?
2. And 'Selfie' is a pretty precise way of describing 'an amateurish self portrait taken by the subject whilst still holding the camera either pointing back at themselves at arm's length or one of themselves reflected in a mirror which also shows the camera being used'. as opposed to 'self portrait', which is a much vaguer term.
1. The English taught in good schools no later than the start of the 60s, or at least before some teachers represented 'alright' and 'allright' as proper words.
2. Selfie, had I not known about the picture connection (thanks to Slobodan), would have suggested something quite else: masturbation, for a start.
;-)
Rob C
-
So what exactly is standard English then Rob?
And 'Selfie' is a pretty precise way of describing 'an amateurish self portrait taken by the subject whilst still holding the camera either pointing back at themselves at arm's length or one of themselves reflected in a mirror which also shows the camera being used'. as opposed to 'self portrait', which is a much vaguer term.
Exactly - the word tells us precisely what the act is. I hate Selfies, but the word quite rightly belongs in the dictionary. How else do the ignorant get to find out what the word means if it's not in the dictionary?
Jim
-
2. Selfie, had I not known about the picture connection (thanks to Slobodan), would have suggested something quite else: masturbation, for a start.
;-)
Rob C
That's why it needs to be in the dictionary Rob - so old people know what it means!! ;D
By the way - my mother in law still thinks 'okay' is not a word. And my wife cringes if I ever use 'gotten'.
Jim
-
The word "selfie" is the kind of trash slang that comes and goes. A few years -- very few -- down the road nobody will even remember it.
-
The word "selfie" is the kind of trash slang that comes and goes. A few years -- very few -- down the road nobody will even remember it.
But really Russ, how can a word that is in such current use not be in the dictionary? Words get removed from the dictionary regularly if they are deemed to have fallen out of use, and new ones go in. I think that is a good thing personally.
Jim
-
I don't have a problem with any word going into the dictionary, Jim. But why add a slang word that's going to disappear shortly? Have you listened to any teenagers lately? There's a whole vocabulary that is born, lives a very short life, and dies with every new generation. Part of the reason is that teenage kids always are trying to get a rise out of their parents. If you're in the dictionary business, why respond to that that kind of transience?
-
I'm no expert on this Russ, but surely a dictionary is a living thing, like language. The English language has and continues to evolve and who is to say which words will or will not last. Selfie may well die out in the next year or two, or perhaps not. But if it is in such common usage then I think it should be included. Lots of words that were once popular slang are still in use, albeit less commonly.
Anyway I have to leave this conversation for now because I have a mountain of work to do!
Jim
-
2. Selfie, had I not known about the picture connection (thanks to Slobodan), would have suggested something quite else: masturbation, for a start.
Lucky I wasn't eating when I read that or I may have decorated my keyboard with biscuit crumbs! :D
-
I don't have a problem with any word going into the dictionary, Jim. But why add a slang word that's going to disappear shortly? Have you listened to any teenagers lately? There's a whole vocabulary that is born, lives a very short life, and dies with every new generation. Part of the reason is that teenage kids always are trying to get a rise out of their parents. If you're in the dictionary business, why respond to that that kind of transience?
Some slang words become ordinary words after a while and few tend to know the origin. The word in question here, selfie is not teen slang anymore if it ever was in the first place. And usually the reason a word gets added to the dictionary is because it has passed beyond being slang used by a small group.
The problem with those being defensive about new words is that they probably use a whole host of words that their predecessors did not or use old words in a different way. Many words have come to mean the exact opposite of what they used to or something else entirely.
Plus all words were new sometimes. Objecting to new words is one of the most pointless things imaginable.
-
You need to read more carefully, Jeremy. I don't object to new words, and I don't object to anybody in the dictionary business putting whatever crap into their dictionaries they want to put into them. What strikes me though is the futility of trying to keep up with adding and deleting transient slang. Seems an awful waste of time and money.
-
I did read that you didn't mind new words. But was commenting on your dislike of 'slang' being added.
As for complaining about compilers adding words that may be transient, that's like complaining about a doctor performing medicine.
Dictionaries are updated to reflect current language usage. They are not much use otherwise and if a word falls out of favour, dictionaries should note that. Also worth bearing in mind that when people read books from an earlier era, a dictionary that has definitions of words that are no longer commonly used is very, very useful.
-
Also worth bearing in mind that when people read books from an earlier era, a dictionary that has definitions of words that are no longer commonly used is very, very useful.
Good point, Jeremy. I have a very old Webster down here in Florida and it's come in handy more than once for that very purpose.
-
That's why it needs to be in the dictionary Rob - so old people know what it means!! ;D
By the way - my mother in law still thinks 'okay' is not a word. And my wife cringes if I ever use 'gotten'.
Jim
I think I like your mother-in-law; your wife has God on her side. 'Gotten' is so ugly!
Russ is probably right: who, other than I just now, has ever used 'daddio' lately? 'Cool' has been modified beyond recognition - no - expanded so far that it means absolutely everything and, consequently, nothing. Much like 'nice', then, another word with no real meaning at all.
Strict discipline - backbone etc. etc. We need it badly. Look what happened to the finance business when that sensibility became lost, abandoned and ultimately mocked?
Rob C
-
I think I like your mother-in-law; your wife has God on her side. 'Gotten' is so ugly!
When I first moved up North in the UK [which is actually in the centre of the country], I used to wince when people said "I'll be working while 5 o'clock" as elsewhere people work until 5pm. I'm used to it now, but still don't use it. Amusingly [to me] it seems that Windows computers have a Northern feel to them, as they say "please wait while your computer shuts down". ;D
I always find it a bit ironic when Brits complain about Americanisms such as 'gotten (http://treeofmamre.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/bbcs-americanisms-are-they-really-americanisms-and-is-americanism-even-a-word/)', because American English is actually much closer to old English than British English is for one reason or another. Gotten being a prime example and period [in the full stop sense], another word people complain about used to be used in the UK but then fell out of favour for a while and is now seen [by some] as a horrid Americanism.
I read a piece by the author Joe Haldeman about the writing of a story he set in the mid 1800s and the unusual problem he encountered. A lot of the language that was used then had fallen out of favour and then more recently back into favour. This meant if he was truly accurate in the words he used, then it would seem wrong as a lot of the words are now seen as modern inventions.
-
When I first moved up North in the UK [which is actually in the centre of the country], I used to wince when people said "I'll be working while 5 o'clock" as elsewhere people work until 5pm. I'm used to it now, but still don't use it. Amusingly [to me] it seems that Windows computers have a Northern feel to them, as they say "please wait while your computer shuts down". ;D
I always find it a bit ironic when Brits complain about Americanisms such as 'gotten (http://treeofmamre.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/bbcs-americanisms-are-they-really-americanisms-and-is-americanism-even-a-word/)', because American English is actually much closer to old English than British English is for one reason or another. Gotten being a prime example and period [in the full stop sense], another word people complain about used to be used in the UK but then fell out of favour for a while and is now seen [by some] as a horrid Americanism.
I read a piece by the author Joe Haldeman about the writing of a story he set in the mid 1800s and the unusual problem he encountered. A lot of the language that was used then had fallen out of favour and then more recently back into favour. This meant if he was truly accurate in the words he used, then it would seem wrong as a lot of the words are now seen as modern inventions.
Thanks, jjj, that's a very good explanation of why the purity of language should remain sacrosant! Them Frenchies ain't as daft as they's made out to be! ;-)
Le weekend indeed!
Rob C
-
The word is a good one as it refers not to just a self portrait, but to a particular and rather odd arm contortion as well; holding the small camera as far as the arm allows, then cocking the wrist awkwardly to point the camera back toward the body. Maybe "wristie" should be the first proper synonym.
-
The word is a good one as it refers not to just a self portrait, but to a particular and rather odd arm contortion as well; holding the small camera as far as the arm allows, then cocking the wrist awkwardly to point the camera back toward the body. Maybe "wristie" should be the first proper synonym.
There are ergonomic lessons in it for Samsung: putting the 'shutter release' as a sensitive area on the edge of the screen is the most stupid option anyone could have selected to implement. I'd have thought they would have realised from a century of precedent that a release should be a proper, physical thing that you can feel, and that it should always go on the top, despite the silly alternatives suggested by some early slr makers. Anyone remember the extended diaphragm control/shutter release on the sides of some lenses made for Exakta? Drove me mad. Who knew it was to be a classic?
Rob C
-
The word is a good one as it refers not to just a self portrait, but to a particular and rather odd arm contortion as well; holding the small camera as far as the arm allows, then cocking the wrist awkwardly to point the camera back toward the body. Maybe "wristie" should be the first proper synonym.
Except selfies [as noted in my definition above] are frequently taken in a mirror.
In fact if you put 'selfie' into google images, most of the shots are with camera facing mirror.
-
Thanks, jjj, that's a very good explanation of why the purity of language should remain sacrosant!
Really!?! I can't tell if you are being sarcastic as the post was about how utterly daft it is to be precious about language purity.
Particularly as English is a Germanic language with a plethora of French words shoved into it. Not to mention a whole heap of adopted words from the various countries we invaded. Which is an awful lot of countries! The very few white countries being places we didn't attack/invade/colonise.
(http://i.imgur.com/yKK2yrc.gif)
Though whilst researching this I discovered the UK and Sweden were once at war.
This is what happened (http://i.imgur.com/C1477.png).....
-
Really!?! I can't tell if you are being sarcastic as the post was about how utterly daft it is to be precious about language purity.
Particularly as English is a Germanic language with a plethora of French words shoved into it. Not to mention a whole heap of adopted words from the various countries we invaded. Which is an awful lot of countries! The very few white countries being places we didn't attack/invade/colonise.
(http://i.imgur.com/yKK2yrc.gif)
Though whilst researching this I discovered the UK and Sweden were once at war.
This is what happened (http://i.imgur.com/C1477.png).....
Is that all? I though the Empire covered the entire Earth, the US still has some catching up to do!
-
Is that all? I though the Empire covered the entire Earth, the US still has some catching up to do!
I doubt 90% is going to be beaten by anyone for quite some time, if ever.
-
The guy who did more "selfies" than anyone else was Lee Friedlander, but if you'd called one of his shots a "selfie," he'd probably have popped you in the chops.
-
Tatterdemalion is still in the dictionary, and I doubt it gets used much these days. Selfie could be in the dictionary for quite some time.
-
The guy who did more "selfies" than anyone else was Lee Friedlander, but if you'd called one of his shots a "selfie," he'd probably have popped you in the chops.
It's actually this guy: http://www.arno-rafael-minkkinen.com
He was honored just a few weeks ago in NYC at the Lucie Awards (our version of the Oscars ) for his "body" of work. Really wonderful, inventive work. He joked about being honored for doing selfies-- he's well worth checking out. Wonderful teacher too.
-
Tatterdemalion is still in the dictionary, and I doubt it gets used much these days. Selfie could be in the dictionary for quite some time.
It's a shame, Bill. Tatterdemalion's a great word and it still should be in general use.
-
I doubt 90% is going to be beaten by anyone for quite some time, if ever.
Selfie = new name for the inflated sense of self-importance?
90%!? Give me a break! A few skirmishes and you "paint" 11% of the world territory as "yours" (e.g., Russia)!?
-
Selfie = new name for the inflated sense of self-importance?
90%!? Give me a break! A few skirmishes and you "paint" 11% of the world territory as "yours" (e.g., Russia)!?
Slobodan, arguments are presented to win points, not to tell truths!
;-)
Rob C
-
90%!? Give me a break! A few skirmishes and you "paint" 11% of the world territory as "yours" (e.g., Russia)!?
No the map was about places invaded, not ruled.
-
It's a shame, Bill. Tatterdemalion's a great word and it still should be in general use.
Funny you should say that Russell, as I thought you were referring to....
-
Let's solve the problem by all starting to communicate exclusively in God's own language: Esperanto! ???
-
Let's solve the problem by all starting to communicate exclusively in God's own language: Esperanto! ???
I had an Esperanto book in the 40s - I think 'tree' was arbro, or something similar... the book came from an English gent who'd lived in Spain a while. As I recall, a mix of Italian, Spanish, French... no wonder there was a war in Europe. Now, we have the Common Market, and a war may come again, too. The Great Fudge has to hit the buffers one day, and the carnage will offer great selfie opportunities.
Weebly gave me the key to my technical disaster with my new Coke Page in the website, but now, with their help, I have fixed it. It's sad for me to see the stuff looking correctly focussed there, but never here anymore. On the other hand, the reverse would be worse!
;-)
Rob C
-
Maybe Vivian Maier can impart some creative weight onto the selfie:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/11/vivians-selfies.html
Received my copy a couple weeks ago. It's a beautiful book.
-Dave-
-
I am not sure why there is such a derisive attitude towards a new word for something people have been doing for hundreds of years. I think we are just seeing the curmudgeon-factor here. In order to validate that you are not just being reactionary and curmudgeonly, I want you all to list four newly created words that you actually like. If you can do that, I will allow you to complain about selfie without pulling the curmudgeon card.
Just to play by my own rules, my favorite new words: selfie, twerking, crowd-sourcing, milf, and polyamory. I don't give you these words to claim I am an adherent of their meaning, but I do think they are interesting and useful.
...and just to make my point, here is a selfie of my grandfather taken sometime in the late 1950s or early 1960s. I am really happy I have the picture. It lets me see into his personality and to have some connection across the years based on our common interest of photography.
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6012/5949974397_64f8fe22d2_z.jpg)
-
Maybe Vivian Maier can impart some creative weight onto the selfie:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/11/vivians-selfies.html
Received my copy a couple weeks ago. It's a beautiful book.
-Dave-
Also, considering everything we think we know, it shows and confirms yet again that talent is from within. You can't effin' buy it, be taught it nor steal it, no matter how many coins you have that you can throw at it. Throw 'em at the Trevi instead - you can always get an expensive ice cream or espresso when you get there.
Wondeful chick. I wonder if recognition in her lifetime would have ruined her?
Rob C
-
Just to play by my own rules, my favorite new words: selfie, twerking, crowd-sourcing, milf, and polyamory. I don't give you these words to claim I am an adherent of their meaning, but I do think they are interesting and useful.
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6012/5949974397_64f8fe22d2_z.jpg)
I will use them all in a single sentence:
"I was cruising Tumblr yesterday, when I found a hot page of selfies, all crowd-sourced from twerking, polyammorous milfs."
-
Off the top of my head I am enamoured of 'sapiosexual' — a formerly unnamed trait of which I have always been a devotee.
I also enjoy being curmudgeonly but I feel that to use the word to describe LuLa members is a great injustice to the word. To me 'curmudgeon' makes no reference to being terrified, bored, paranoid or socially challenged.
If I can think of another three new words I'll gladly add them to complete your challenge.
W
-
... a new word for something people have been doing for hundreds of years...
Well, not quite.
What people have been doing for thousands of years is known as self-portrait, which happens to be a respected art genre.
The difference is profound. The difference though is not so clear from all the dictionary and other references so far, which focus on technique, but completely miss the frequency of use. Selfies are done dozens of times a day* and published online almost as frequently (and that's where the narcissistic nature of it comes into play). Trust me, I have a teenage daughter.
I, for one, welcome the new word (though not the new world it describes), as it clearly serves to differentiate itself from the time-honored artistic self-portraits.
EDIT:
* by the same person, in case it was not immediately clear
-
Good point, Slobodan. Hear, hear. I like the idea of differentiation, making clear the schism involved between "selfies" and actual art.
-
Funny you should say that Russell, as I thought you were referring to....
No way, Jeremy. Actually, Dickens was coming to mind.
-
It does sound like a Dickensian name - Neville Tatterdermalion - the rag and bone man from Cheapside.
-
Exactly!
-
Let us not overlook the socially helpful aspects of the humble selfie:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/selfie-leads-winnipeg-police-to-teen-robbery-suspects-1.2435142
-
Good point, Slobodan. Hear, hear. I like the idea of differentiation, making clear the schism involved between "selfies" and actual art.
That just sounds snooty. Everyone can make art. Remember what it was like to be young and beautiful. There is a great desire to freeze in time a feeling that you know is temporal. Don't begrudge the young and beautiful and their time to frolic and celebrate their beauty with a photo.
-
Snoot, snoot! Come on, Marc, I have 17 grandchildren and I can tell you that the young and beautiful always will frolic and celebrate their beauty whether you care or not. On the other hand, at 83 I still frolic and celebrate, but not my physical beauty. I've never had a desire to fix myself in time. Life has its seasons and I celebrate them all. I think most sane people are a lot more interested in pictures of others than of themselves.
-
As another elderly curmudgeon I'd like to point out that not all of the young are beautiful.
-
As another elderly curmudgeon I'd like to point out that not all of the young are beautiful.
Yes, of course, but youth is always beautiful.
What I am reacting to is the notion that the desire to take a photo of yourself is a horrible and narcissistic thing when young people shoot a selfie, but when Renoir, Van Gogh, or Davinci did it, somehow then, THAT was different and therefore ART. Sure there are crass and shoddy selfies being shared on snapchat and facebook and twitter all the time, but it is uncharitable to exclude people from the joy of art merely because they aren't very good at it or because they are a bit self-absorbed. As a matter of fact, I am not sure there is any class of human being quite so self-absorbed and narcissistic as artists who have painted, drawn, or photographed themselves. ...and so what. Celebrate yourself! You are the only you that you will ever know.
-
,,, it is uncharitable to exclude people from the joy of art merely because they aren't very good at it...
Oh, on the contrary, it is quite charitable... to viewers. ;)
-
Yes, of course, but youth is always beautiful.
But, as George Bernard Shaw put it, "Youth is wasted on the young." ;)
-
Yes, and he ripped it off the French:
"Si jeunesse savait et vieillesse pouvait."
The older I get, unlike stamper, the more I realise that I let slip away.
Rob C
-
But, as George Bernard Shaw put it, "Youth is wasted on the young." ;)
It's a nice catchy phrase, but was probably said as he was getting on a bit and was jealous that he didn't have as much fun as he should have whilst young.
The French phrase is slightly more balanced as it reflects both sides of the age divide.
-
It's a nice catchy phrase, but was probably said as he was getting on a bit and was jealous that he didn't have as much fun as he should have whilst young.
The French phrase is slightly more balanced as it reflects both sides of the age divide.
But it still doesn't help my score; these young people never learn.
;-(
Rob C
-
... I think we are just seeing the curmudgeon-factor here...
I think framing a difference of opinion as a "curmudgeon-factor" makes just as much sense as me calling your opinion the usual youthful, leftist BS, no?
-
Bashing narcissistic people all day is quite a narcissistic endeavor by itself.
-
Bashing narcissistic people all day is quite a narcissistic endeavor by itself.
I used to love mirrors as much as they loved me - I think I told you they used to reach out and kiss me; now we hardly speak.
Tempus fugit. And steals everything else away with it.
;-)
Rob C
-
I used to love mirrors as much as they loved me - I think I told you they used to reach out and kiss me; now we hardly speak.
Tempus fugit. And steals everything else away with it.
;-)
Rob C
Its about time I come to Mallorca and we go out drink a beer or two ...
-
But it still doesn't help my score; these young people never learn.
In that case all the old folk must be pretty ignorant too, as learning doesn't tend to happen much once one matures. :P
-
I think framing a difference of opinion as a "curmudgeon-factor" makes just as much sense as me calling your opinion the usual youthful, leftist BS, no?
Not quite, as grumpy complaining about new things is quite definitely curmudgeonly. That what it means. Though sometimes a bit more bad tempered.
-
In that case all the old folk must be pretty ignorant too, as learning doesn't tend to happen much once one matures. :P
It gets even worse: when one lives alone too long, as many do, there is a distinct tendency to lose one of the first factors governing inter-personal relationships: one loses that automatic reaction of first considering words and actions from a perspective other than one's own. Come to think of it, living alone may not even be a necessary part of that gradual loss.
Rob C
-
If you ever had that 'reaction of first considering words and actions from a perspective other than one's own' in the first place, consider yourself one of the lucky ones. As it is something rarely done by most folks.
-
If you ever had that 'reaction of first considering words and actions from a perspective other than one's own' in the first place, consider yourself one of the lucky ones. As it is something rarely done by most folks.
I guess that I had it on and off; usually, when it was off it was off at the worst possible moments. Worse, it was sometimes off intentionally, and in retrospect that was really, really dumb.
;-(
Rob C
-
I will use them all in a single sentence:
"I was cruising Tumblr yesterday, when I found a hot page of selfies, all crowd-sourced from twerking, polyammorous milfs."
That is excellent!!!
-
I thought this was particularly germane to the topic.
http://www.thewire.com/culture/2013/11/of-course-selfies-are-narcissistic/355432/
-
It is.
I think the problem is that some people get all hot and bothered by what other people do, even if it has no effect on them.
-
... some people get all hot and bothered by what other people do, even if it has no effect on them.
Seems like you are the lucky one, never been harmed by a narcissist.
-
Indeed. Thankfully I'm not allergic to self preening, nuts or wasps. As life would indeed be tricky.
-
Seems like you are the lucky one, never been harmed by a narcissist.
Are we talking about people taking selfies or narcissists? Certainly narcissism is on a continuum and there are degrees that are more or less problematic...though I am not sure how narcissists directly harm others with their self-absorption. Taking a selfie or making a self-portrait are two different modalities of the same desire but doing either doesn't make a person pathological narcissist to be feared or maligned.
I posted a selfie my grandfather took in the 1950s. Are you saying he is a narcissist? I have taken self portraits or selfies on several occasions. Does that make me a narcissist? Are you saying that in all you years of photography that you have never made a casual self portrait of yourself? That is incomprehensible.
-
I think Slobodan may not have been entirely serious.
-
I think Slobodan may not have been entirely serious.
Sometimes I can't tell.
-
It can indeed be quite hard telling such things online at times and why one shouldn't reply too hastily to posts.
But as I mentioned in another thread today, smileys can be very useful to indicate when things are not obvious. We can't tell if a poster was smiling or frowning when typing, which helps in real life.
-
Sometimes I can't tell.
Hey, sometimes I can't tell either! ;D*
* There you go, triple j, a smiley for you
-
I think Slobodan may not have been entirely serious.
My bet says he is.
;-)
Rob C
-
Is that bet serious though?
-
I think Slobodan may not have been entirely serious.
Hey, sometimes I can't tell either! Grin*
My bet says he is.
;-)
Rob C
Is that bet serious though?
My GOD! What is with you people? Don't you understand that sarcasm doesn't work online. All we get piss-poor communication. Say what you mean...mean what you say...and stop dithering about like a bunch derpy, narcissistic, selfie-taking snapchatters.
-
My GOD! What is with you people? Don't you understand that sarcasm doesn't work online. All we get piss-poor communication. Say what you mean...mean what you say...and stop dithering about like a bunch derpy, narcissistic, selfie-taking snapchatters.
Where the sarcasm?
You bet lightly? Some bet nightly, but that's another thing altogether.
Rob C
-
Sarcasm can work quite well online, it just depends on how you say it. :P
However, none of the quoted posts appear to be sarcastic, slightly silly definitely.
-
Are we talking about people taking selfies or narcissists?...
I was talking about pathological narcissists, of course, and from a personal experience. And no, it was not about some cheesy romantic story, as it was a business relationship. And not only me, but a dozen other colleagues in that instance, and later we found out there is a trail of serious damage done to others in the past as well.
... Certainly narcissism is on a continuum and there are degrees that are more or less problematic...though I am not sure how narcissists directly harm others with their self-absorption...
Agree on the continuum. As for damage to others, there is huge body of work, from academic research to books, documenting precisely the damage to others, in personal and business settings. And it is not just through self-absorbtion, but mostly through extreme and aggressive selfishness. Easy to google it.
... Taking a selfie or making a self-portrait are two different modalities of the same desire but doing either doesn't make a person pathological narcissist to be feared or maligned...
Agree... up to a point. That point being: selfies, in my interpretation, indicate narcissistic tendencies that, when left unchecked, may or may not lead to a full-blown case. This youngest generation has not "invented" narcissism, of course. It is with us since the dawn of the mankind, and certainly from the Greek times, where the term originated. We all have it, to a degree. However, most major religions, as well as most social norms criticize it in one way or another, and rightly so. From "pride" as one of "the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins" (Wikipedia), to President Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." What is different with the latest generation, is that the technology is allowing them to indulge in it on a scale and speed never seen before. The sheer speed of it is outpacing parental or societal ability to mitigate it.
... I posted a selfie my grandfather took in the 1950s. Are you saying he is a narcissist? I have taken self portraits or selfies on several occasions. Does that make me a narcissist?...
I keep arguing, from the beginning of this thread, that your granddad did not take a selfie, but a self-portrait. I do not know about you, maybe you did a selfie, maybe you did a self-portrait. The difference being the sheer amount, frequency, and intended distribution. If your granddad did it dozens of times per day, as our kids do, and then printed it dozens of times and plastered light poles in your neighborhood with it, than, indeed, he took a selfie. But I doubt he did that.
... Are you saying that in all you years of photography that you have never made a casual self portrait of yourself? That is incomprehensible.
Like most photographers, I suspect, I am rather camera shy and prefer to be behind it. However, in the spirit of blending in with the younger generation, and in the (vain) hope it will make me younger, here is one of rare self-portraits I did, several years ago. You will notice that I was actually trying on sunglasses in a store, and the purpose of the shot was thus rather utilitarian.
-
Now the circle is complete. We get a Slobo-Selfie. All the meandering discussion has brought us to the truth. We can certainly continue debating the connotation of selfie, but the authority on denotation doesn't mention narcissism and since Slobodan has made a selfie, logic would tell us that we can all rest assured that the youth of our world all posses the same wisdom and self-awareness as the elegantly mature Slobodan.
(was that sarcastic enough?)
-
... the elegantly mature Slobodan...
Hmmm.... now that you mentioned it, I can't help admiring how perceptive you actually are. You are spot on. With your help, I can see what you are seeing: the elegance, the white hair denoting wisdom, yet with enough dark hair to denote vigor... steely blue eyes (ok, you can not see it, but I know they are there)... ruggedly handsome face, sun-kissed tan, self-confident inner smile, impeccable taste in shades (and cameras)... wait, I better stop here, otherwise I will fall in love with myself all over again!
-
Hmmm.... now that you mentioned it, I can't help admiring how perceptive you actually are. You are spot on. With your help, I can see what you are seeing: the elegance, the white hair denoting wisdom, yet with enough dark hair to denote vigor... steely blue eyes (ok, you can not see it, but I know they are there)... ruggedly handsome face, sun-kissed tan, self-confident inner smile, impeccable taste in shades (and cameras)... wait, I better stop here, otherwise I will fall in love with myself all over again!
A veritable silver fox.
-
So my family and I went to the Formula 1 race in Austin a couple weeks ago. The hardcore fans, including us, were in the stands for every F1 practice session. Of course the casual attendees only show up for the actual race. I was shocked to see a number of 20-somethings around us on race day who were trying to take phone pics of themselves with the cars in the background, on lap one! Why on earth would you spend all that money to see an event like that, and then waste the first lap action (where much of the race outcome is determined) trying to take some stupid selfie? Who would want to see those photos?
-
Themselves, their friends….
No different from getting a picture of yourself in front of the Eiffel Tower.
-
Themselves, their friends….
No different from getting a picture of yourself in front of the Eiffel Tower.
I guess, but why not wait until 10 laps in or something, when there's a lull in the action? Were they there to see the event, or to take pictures of themselves at the event?
The really frustrating thing is that they were standing up, getting in the way of all the other spectators, who had no interest in these clowns.
-
Everyone has an asshole, only some have nothing else.
But, being in Texas, they could be pretty damned big ones and obscure the view of the cars...
Anyway, who'd care? Vettel always wins, just as did Michael S with Ferrari many years ago. That's why he was forced to retire: the attendance numbers were dropping off due to boredom. (My interpretation of this racing life.)
;-)
Rob C
-
Everyone has an asshole, only some have nothing else.
But, being in Texas, they could be pretty damned big ones and obscure the view of the cars...
Anyway, who'd care? Vettel always wins, just as did Michael S with Ferrari many years ago. That's why he was forced to retire: the attendance numbers were dropping off due to boredom. (My interpretation of this racing life.)
;-)
Rob C
Well, before Schumacher there were dynasties of Senna, Prost, Piquet, Lauda, etc., etc. The only difference is that the cars are so much more reliable now that these streaks have no random breakages. F1 has no "on any given day" aspect, like football. But, this was the first time I'd actually had the selfie phenomena get in my way.
Come to think of it, maybe not. The locals had pretty much sewed up the practice of the selfie when I lived in Japan in the late 90s. They actually had just as much trouble understanding why we didn't want pictures of ourselves in front of every major tourist attraction. But at least they were doing them as group photos in most cases.
-
http://vimeo.com/78234902 (http://vimeo.com/78234902)
-
From a century ago: http://t.co/S19abXpUVw
-Dave-
-
Now now you can literally eat yourself (http://www.boomf.com).
-
From a century ago: http://t.co/S19abXpUVw
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Same goes for those complaining about the changes that are not new.
-
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang, but a whimper.
-
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang, but a whimper.
Bring it on. Bring it on.
-
Typically these are pictures to be shared, and they say "I am here, at F1!" to all their friends.
There's some sort of affirmation of existence going on with a lot of this stuff. It's some sort of externalized interior monologue, and it's some sort of "I exist, I am here!" impulse intertwined with that.
-
Why does "selfie" somehow remind me of "quickie" ? :P
-
A selfie as Rob C thought it meant, is substantially different from a quickie. ;D
-
A selfie as Rob C thought it meant, is substantially different from a quickie. ;D
But the original, primordial selfie/quickie comes with a single, unmatchable benefit beyond all the other forms of similar entertainment: the timing is always perfect.
Rob C
-
New "selfie stick (http://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/new-selfie-stick-named-after-zuckerburg/story-fn6vihic-1226770359884http://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/new-selfie-stick-named-after-zuckerburg/story-fn6vihic-1226770359884)" named after Zuckerburg.
Cheers,
-
Forget the selfie - it just became so yesterday. Announcing the newest cool thing in photography, the shelfie (self-portrait with shelves):
-
Excellent idea, Peter, but I think your example needs a little more work in Photoshop to align the mouth angle to match that of the shelves. ???
-
Two faces of the Selfie:
http://petapixel.com/2013/12/04/anonymous-woman-makes-cover-ny-post-thanks-ill-timed-selfie/
http://petapixel.com/2013/12/05/pioneering-photographer-robert-cornelius-credited-worlds-first-selfie/
Clearly one is far more serious than the other, but both are selfies.
-
The latest selfie trend is engagement ring selfies (http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/dl-weddings/taking-engagement-ring-selfies-20131203-2yo2t.html)…
Cheers,
-
The latest selfie trend is engagement ring selfies (http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/dl-weddings/taking-engagement-ring-selfies-20131203-2yo2t.html)…
Cheers,
Sigh...
How long until the first story about thieves tracking women down across the net, just to steal their selfie rings?
-
Sigh...
How long until the first story about thieves tracking women down across the net, just to steal their selfie rings?
Well done! That's your scoop of the day!
;-)
Rob C
-
Sadly for those who dislike the term selfie, it's already morphed further.
Welcome to the 'belfie'. The bum selfie. Yes really.
Though the Daily Mail in it's rush to find an excuse to show pictures of women backsides did an article on the supposed new trend started by Kim Kardashian [like it had never been done before] and did so with a bunch of photos taken by someone other than the subject. Duh!
Probably didn't pay the photographers for them either.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/21/article-2470075-18CD217400000578-332_634x977.jpg)
Looks like this one was taken with a good lens. The corners are not distorted at all.
-
That is positively grotesque. It might also be negatively grotesque, but that's one of the problems of creative writing: one
woman's meat...
Rob C
-
That is positively grotesque. It might also be negatively grotesque, but that's one of the problems of creative writing: one woman's meat...
I'm having trouble working out which way your preferences lie here due to the potential vagaries of English, which also adds to English's creative writing possibilities. ;)
Is positively grotesque, grotesque but in a good way [which is something someone who likes curves may say about KK] or is do you simply mean very grotesque?
-
I'm having trouble working out which way your preferences lie here due to the potential vagaries of English, which also adds to English's creative writing possibilities. ;)
Is positively grotesque, grotesque but in a good way [which is something someone who likes curves may say about KK] or is do you simply mean very grotesque?
jjj, I couldn't possibly answer that directly: 'twould destroy the interpretative value each reader brings to the party. We would end up like North Korea. (Not Cuba, because I know a Cuban or two, and they are definitely different, also one to/from the other.)
Rob C
-
Heaven forbid we had clarity of communication, as then what would we bicker about? Other than MF Vs DSLR Vs MFT/Apple Vs MS/ Canon Vs Nikon….
-
Heaven forbid we had clarity of communication, as then what would we bicker about? Other than MF Vs DSLR Vs MFT/Apple Vs MS/ Canon Vs Nikon….
Well, there's always the colour/black'n'white scab that we could pick should everything else fall into the despair of ultimate clarity... I'm increasingly drawn to black/white these days.
:-)
Rob C
-
On that note - one thing that always bugs me about the idiotic rules about photos in photojournalism competitions is that despite all the moronic and mostly ignorant rules about not altering the image, B+W shots are still allowed. But heaven forbid you decrease or increase colour saturation at all, as then the dogs of war will be unleashed in various photo forums and blog posts.
-
On that note - one thing that always bugs me about the idiotic rules about photos in photojournalism competitions is that despite all the moronic and mostly ignorant rules about not altering the image, B+W shots are still allowed. But heaven forbid you decrease or increase colour saturation at all, as then the dogs of war will be unleashed in various photo forums and blog posts.
When it comes to B&W, there are only two kinds of people: those who understand the difference between B&W and color and those who don't. You don't.
-
That is positively grotesque. It might also be negatively grotesque...
Either way, the picture reminds me of my grandma's saying: "Wise man's shame is fool's pride." Or woman's.
-
When it comes to B&W, there are only two kinds of people: those who understand the difference between B&W and color and those who don't. You don't.
Oh as I'm apparently too dumb to know the difference, please explain to all us unenlightened fools. With particular reference to the specific context I was talking about.
Oh BTW, that's an extremely patronising and very ignorant post Slobodan. That's the sort of thing I'd expect from the likes of Floyd Davidson.
-
On that note - one thing that always bugs me about the idiotic rules about photos in photojournalism competitions is that despite all the moronic and mostly ignorant rules about not altering the image, B+W shots are still allowed. But heaven forbid you decrease or increase colour saturation at all, as then the dogs of war will be unleashed in various photo forums and blog posts.
What I wonder is this: If you convert to B&W by simply decreasing colour saturation all the way, is it still allowed? ;)
-
What I wonder is this: If you convert to B&W by simply decreasing colour saturation all the way, is it still allowed? ;)
Well it's B+W then, so that's fine. Yet less extreme desaturation is somehow too extreme for some bizarre reason.
-
That is positively grotesque. It might also be negatively grotesque, but that's one of the problems of creative writing: one woman's meat...
Since we are talking pure optics, a "positive or convex warp" term could be used here.
-
Looks like this one was taken with a good lens. The corners are not distorted at all.
But look at all that noise and grain. It's almost enough to put one off all sex. ;D
-
What I wonder is this: If you convert to B&W by simply decreasing colour saturation all the way, is it still allowed? ;)
I'm not sure if it is allowed or advisable, but I converted it anyway for your convenience (see attached image).
I desaturated in on my old laptop armed with a 13-year old Photoshop 6 (fully paid for and registered with Adobe - along with my other personal information that was distributed recently worldwide). I was wondering whether the latest version of PS CC would produce anything more meaningful, but either way, the BW version simply doesn't work for me. I'm sure there are some connoisseurs who really enjoy pronounced contours and shapes, and harsh treatments in the grungy monochrome scenes, but speaking for myself, I like good light to see all the colours.
Anyway, it seems that in this particular case the BW conversion wouldn't be in the best interest of the model or most viewers.
A gentle Puppet Warp push in the westerly direction (starting at the easternmost point of the formation) might yield a more pleasing result.
But look at all that noise and grain. It's almost enough to put one off all sex. ;D
Yes, Ray, I noticed all the noise when I examined the original picture. Most likely, shot at high ISO. It must have been quite dark in that room.
As you say, the overall impression is off-putting, that's why I pointed out that the corners held the most promise.
-
But look at all that noise and grain. It's almost enough to put one off all sex. ;D
Some people think a lot of noise is a sign of good sex! :o
-
Some people think a lot of noise is a sign of good sex! :o
Or rotten furniture and lung cancer.
Rob C
-
... Oh BTW, that's an extremely patronising and very ignorant post Slobodan...
Perhaps.
However, you opened the door, Jeremy. You called the opinion you disagree with "idiotic, moronic, ignorant."
I was much kinder to you.
-
It's fascinating to see how we malign a sexy selfie in a way that we would never malign artistic nudes or fashion photography.
I think it is very interesting to see how women present themselves when the image is self-taken and given willingly (I will, for the moment, put aside the fact that many of these photos were never meant for distribution, which in itself is an unfortunate betrayal). It's as if when women take over their own image and deign to represent themselves as objects of beauty or admiration, suddenly they are narcissistic sluts, but when they pose nude for "artistes" then THAT is okay. Very strange mores we have here, people.
A selfie is to a portrait what an autobiography is to biography. One is not better than the other.
-
... It's as if when women take over their own image and deign to represent themselves as objects of beauty or admiration, suddenly they are narcissistic sluts, but when they pose nude for "artistes" then THAT is okay...
That IS indeed ok.
As they say, when you talk to God, you are religious... when God talks to you, your are... delusional (at best, schizophrenic at worst). When somebody calls you beautiful, that's a compliment... when you call yourself beautiful, you are a narcissist (and most likely delusional at the same time). By the same token, when an artist takes a nude photo/painting/sculpture of you, that is art... when you do it, without managing to elevate it to art, that's just a narcissistic selfie. For the same reason we do not mind seeing Michelangelo's David's peepee in public, yet cringe at even a thought of streets full of people exposing theirs.
When a famous (or at least good) writer writes an autobiography, that is art. If I write it, it would be a narcissistic crap.
In a nutshell.
-
That IS indeed ok.
...
Elitist claptrap.
-
That IS indeed ok.
As they say, when you talk to God, you are religious... when God talks to you, your are... delusional (at best, schizophrenic at worst). When somebody calls you beautiful, that's a compliment... when you call yourself beautiful, you are a narcissist (and most likely delusional at the same time). By the same token, when an artist takes a nude photo/painting/sculpture of you, that is art... when you do it, without managing to elevate it to art, that's just a narcissistic selfie. For the same reason we do not mind seeing Michelangelo's David's peepee in public, yet cringe at even a thought of streets full of people exposing theirs.
When a famous (or at least good) writer writes an autobiography, that is art. If I write it, it would be a narcissistic crap.
In a nutshell.
Doesn't follow: I do and I'm not.
;-)
Rob C
-
If we take an elitist attitude towards judging art we overlook great artist that come from humble beginnings.
* Diary of Anne Frank, she was just a young girl who wrote in her diary.
* I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, an unknown african american writer who dared to write about life from her perspective
* Vincent Van Gogh lived in poverty during his lifetime, never recognized by the elites
How many great artists were never "discovered" because of elitism like this.
Of course you will ask whether I am comparing a naked selfie to the works of these folks. YES, I am. I can like or not like a particular piece of work, but I will not denigrate the people who answer the call to make art.
-
It's fascinating to see how we malign a sexy selfie in a way that we would never malign artistic nudes or fashion photography.
I think it is very interesting to see how women present themselves when the image is self-taken and given willingly (I will, for the moment, put aside the fact that many of these photos were never meant for distribution, which in itself is an unfortunate betrayal). It's as if when women take over their own image and deign to represent themselves as objects of beauty or admiration, suddenly they are narcissistic sluts, but when they pose nude for "artistes" then THAT is okay. Very strange mores we have here, people.
A selfie is to a portrait what an autobiography is to biography. One is not better than the other.
Where is the sexy selfie? That image is the opposite: to me, it's agricultural.
As for the difference between working for a legit photographer and making rotten self-images, they are hardly comparable on moral grounds, but certainly do speak of poor judgement if they are 'sensitive' material. If the photographer, and what the woman does with him is good, that's fine; if it is pornographic, then that's another genre altogether. You simply can't generalise and also be accurate in such matters.
And to balance selfies with an autobiography is madness. At least the autobiography and biography both take some skills to get published, unlike this image, which I could imagine probably took a snort or two instead. (And that's no reference to agriculture.) If it is genuine - which I doubt somewhat - getting published is simply because of the celebrity whom it supposedly represents.
Rob C
-
If we take an elitist attitude towards judging art we overlook great artist that come from humble beginnings.
* Diary of Anne Frank, she was just a young girl who wrote in her diary.
* I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, an unknown african american writer who dared to write about life from her perspective
* Vincent Van Gogh lived in poverty during his lifetime, never recognized by the elites
How many great artists were never "discovered" because of elitism like this.
Of course you will ask whether I am comparing a naked selfie to the works of these folks. YES, I am. I can like or not like a particular piece of work, but I will not denigrate the people who answer the call to make art.
I think you are just having a bad day; where does elitism compact upon any of the people you mentioned and humble origins? That's nothing at all to do with elitism.
Another question might be: are you sure any/all of those people were really that damned good? Perhaps their eventual success might be due more to commercial interests and the weaving of sentimental claptrap than anything intrinsic to themselves as artists.
Where's the naked selfie?
;-)
Rob C
-
...the people who answer the call to make art.
So, when KK exposes her grotesque butt to the world, she was just "answering the call* to make art" ??? Her butt has the same historic and artistic significance as Van Gogh's ear (or the lack thereof)?
What are you smoking, man!?
* EDIT: Come to think of it, she was more likely answering the nature's call ;)
-
Perhaps.
However, you opened the door, Jeremy. You called the opinion you disagree with "idiotic, moronic, ignorant."
I was much kinder to you.
My words were simply accurate descriptions of the rules of photojournalism competitions with regard to B+W. They are are ignorant of photographic history and/or photographic techniques. Also you have to be pretty dim not to notice the contradiction of thinking B+W photos are OK, but altering the saturation slightly is apparently misrepresentative of reality.
And your comment is still remarkably patronising and doesn't have anything to do with the argument, it's simply a sneering put down with no basis in fact. Try arguing the point instead of behaving like the unlamented Floyd.
-
Where is the sexy selfie? That image is the opposite: to me, it's agricultural.
That's just your opinion/taste. A lot of people find her very attractive - which is the sole reason she is so famous. And the photos do not necessarily have to be technically good images for people to appreciate her 'charms'.
Some people may like playboy style imagery - where it's all high production values and beautifully lit, others will prefer less sheen. Even the recession and everything else proof porn industry has suffered with the advent of digital as it was realised, people didn't actually care about production values. They just wanted to be able to see what was going on and 'amateur' porn turned out to be more real/erotic for a large chunk of the market.
-
My words were simply accurate descriptions of the rules of photojournalism competitions with regard to B+W. They are are ignorant of photographic history and/or photographic techniques. Also you have to be pretty dim not to notice the contradiction of thinking B+W photos are OK, but altering the saturation slightly is apparently misrepresentative of reality.
And your comment is still remarkably patronising and doesn't have anything to do with the argument, it's simply a sneering put down with no basis in fact. Try arguing the point instead of behaving like the unlamented Floyd.
What's the point in "arguing the point" with you if you already dismissed my argument (which happens to coincide with the competition rules) as "ignorant, dim, idiotic, moronic"?
-
When a famous (or at least good) writer writes an autobiography, that is art. If I write it, it would be a narcissistic crap.
In a nutshell.
Hey Slobodan - just being pedantic, but only you could write an autobiography about yourself! And you better get a move on if you want it in the shops for Christmas.
Jim
-
Hey Slobodan - just being pedantic, but only you could write an autobiography about yourself!...
Hehe... obviously. Let me rephrase then: "my autobiography would be a narcissistic crap." Good thing is, nobody would notice😏
-
(http://motherbleeper.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/snoopy.jpg?w=650)
-
That's just your opinion/taste. A lot of people find her very attractive - which is the sole reason she is so famous. And the photos do not necessarily have to be technically good images for people to appreciate her 'charms'.
Some people may like playboy style imagery - where it's all high production values and beautifully lit, others will prefer less sheen. Even the recession and everything else proof porn industry has suffered with the advent of digital as it was realised, people didn't actually care about production values. They just wanted to be able to see what was going on and 'amateur' porn turned out to be more real/erotic for a large chunk of the market.
To, the first part, indeed; to the second, no. That's what those PITA PR people are hired to promote; gloss. It's what sells vacuity.
Regarding porn: I know little about it other than that I hate it because it devalued what I used to shoot. Somehow, in some eyes, it infected me with the same farmyard spray of cold slurry.
Rob C
-
What's the point in "arguing the point" with you if you already dismissed my argument (which happens to coincide with the competition rules) as "ignorant, dim, idiotic, moronic"?
Well, maybe one is assume that you resorted to personal insults because you have no valid arument to back up your stance. Also bear in mind I was not talking to or about you when I commented on these rules. So here's your chance, go on and prove there is no hypocrisy or ignorance regarding colour grading and B&W in PJ competitions. And feel free to use Paul Hansen as an example of a cheating photographer.
And whilst you are at it, explain away your patronising comment about those who get B&W and why I'm too stupid to understand B&W.
The rules regarding HDR are equally ignorant of how photography actually works and are just as inconsistent in their (mis)application.
-
To, the first part, indeed; to the second, no. That's what those PITA PR people are hired to promote; gloss. It's what sells vacuity.
Once upon a time gloss was the only way to sell. Not anymore, times have changed. Vacuity can sell itself now. And cell phone selfies are more than up to that. Besides it is content that is of greatest importance, that selfie of KK is better quality than many an iconic news photo.
Regarding porn: I know little about it other than that I hate it because it devalued what I used to shoot. Somehow, in some eyes, it infected me with the same farmyard spray of cold slurry.
Well if someone, somewhere is getting their rocks off to your or my work, then it will be seen by some people as porn.
I saw a documentary on the British Board of Film Classification a while back and they mention an 'adult' video they received which contained nothing rude in it whatsoever. They deliberated and finally decided to give it an '18' or 'x' certificate as it probably wouldn't sell very well otherwise in adult stores. The content was nothing more than footage of ankles and feet as it was aimed at foot fetishists, but was completely un-erotic to anyone else. So maybe a more useful way to define porn is work produced with the sole purpose of arousing people and has no interest/value other than that. So a Pirelli calendar shoot would not be porn as it has a function of selling tyres and the pictures are aesthetically pleasing in and of themselves. However, Pirelli are fundamentally using naked women/sex to sell a product, so porn is bizarrely just being more honest about what it does.
-
So a Pirelli calendar shoot would not be porn as it has a function of selling tyres and the pictures are aesthetically pleasing in and of themselves. However, Pirelli are fundamentally using naked women/sex to sell a product, so porn is bizarrely just being more honest about what it does.
Well Pirelli has evolved, not by design, into something much more that that. It has , in it's genre, become an anthology of photography through the decades. Being invited, and you are invited, to photograph a calendar is now, in and of itself, a recognition of your 'contribution to the photographic aesthetic' and peer esteem. Look at the photographers who, over the past two decades, have been chosen (the one exception arguably being Karl Lagerfeld) and you will see a varied and copious cross section of the better known 'names' and talent in the pro business - from Annie Leibovitz to Terry Richardson, et al.
End result is a Pirelli calendar is much sought after, hard to come by and in the end it's the 'prestige' that's enhanced the Pirelli brand. Not so much the 'women/sex' angle.
-
Well Pirelli has evolved, not by design, into something much more that that. It has , in it's genre, become an anthology of photography through the decades. Being invited, and you are invited, to photograph a calendar is now, in and of itself, a recognition of your 'contribution to the photographic aesthetic' and peer esteem. Look at the photographers who, over the past two decades, have been chosen (the one exception arguably being Karl Lagerfeld) and you will see a varied and copious cross section of the better known 'names' and talent in the pro business - from Annie Leibovitz to Terry Richardson, et al.
End result is a Pirelli calendar is much sought after, hard to come by and in the end it's the 'prestige' that's enhanced the Pirelli brand. Not so much the 'women/sex' angle.
Pirelli both touched the skies and trawled the bottom of the pond. It went out of production for some years because of the economy (they claimed -) and then started up again with another AD who, for my money, took it into hopeless digressions into 'concept' where the hard sell to flog an idea removed the aristic freedom that had governed the earlier shoots - bar the early disaster with poor old Duffy and Allen Jones, of course, so bad Duffy demanded his name be removed from the operation.
Later shoots, selling the P6 tread pattern, turned women into lizards. hardly erotic or even exotic.
Frankly, I think the thing has lost its way; I have two versions of the Calendar Book and owned one calendar - the Big Sur one by Harri Peccinotti - and wouldn't buy a third book, should it ever be published.
Thing is, the original recipients - my best client was one - didn't know anything about 'famous' photographers and I doubt many people care today, either: it was the photographs that appealed. And thank God for that: gave me an entré too, in my own little world of the art. If the photographers mean anything today, it's because of the celeb culture that surrounds some that they are known outwith photography. Nobody other than snappers and models had ever heard of Sara Moon, Francis Giacobetti or even Hans Feurer. And for my money, they still were the ones that took it to the hights. Today, I think they try to preach.
Truth to tell, some of the productions from Pentax, where Sam Haskins alternated with Hans Feurer, were every bit as good, if not actually better; Mintex did some crackers too. Mintex, because it was being handled by Derek Forsyth after he was temporarily displaced from Pirelli by the other guy with the 'concepts'. I think Forsyth knew how to get the best out of photographers. An art in itself!
You can 'concept' any production to death.
Rob C
-
Well Pirelli has evolved, not by design, into something much more that that. It has , in it's genre, become an anthology of photography through the decades. Being invited, and you are invited, to photograph a calendar is now, in and of itself, a recognition of your 'contribution to the photographic aesthetic' and peer esteem. Look at the photographers who, over the past two decades, have been chosen (the one exception arguably being Karl Lagerfeld) and you will see a varied and copious cross section of the better known 'names' and talent in the pro business - from Annie Leibovitz to Terry Richardson, et al.
End result is a Pirelli calendar is much sought after, hard to come by and in the end it's the 'prestige' that's enhanced the Pirelli brand. Not so much the 'women/sex' angle.
I noted the fact that the Pirelli pictures were aesthetically pleasing in and of themselves and by using name photographers this elevated the product in the minds of people who would normally sneer at garage calendars. Great marketing, particularly as they also deliberately limited a promotional tool to create a fake scarcity which again upped their cred in arty circles. It was however, still naked chicks flogging tyres at end of the day though and whilst doing it creatively elevated the calendar, it was still about sex. And being 'arty' gave publications an excuse to print a naughty picture where they wouldn't otherwise, so lots of extra exposure, so to speak. :D Here's the Independent doing just that with the 2014 Calendar (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/in-pictures-first-look-at-the-pirelli-calendar-2014-8954808.html). And the pictures are awful, girls leaning on or next to a car/bike/macho product trying to look sexy is the crappest of all photography genres.
Fundamentally, because they were a big budget affair this gave them a false sense of being better. As it wasn't just a girl photographed cheaply against a coloured backdrop/sitting on a car. Very smart marketing as people in boardrooms would be more likely to collect or display the calendars as they were 'art' and it's those people who actually made the buying decisions, not the grease monkey in the worksop.
Terry Richardson has done them? Well if you want talk about a photographer who does porn, Terry's your man (http://imgur.com/a/khurt#30). Link very not safe for work by the way.
He also has a bad reputation for abusing his position of power (http://jezebel.com/5495699/exclusive-more-models-come-forward-with-allegations-against-fashion-photographer/1443682521/@drgonzo).
-
Well, maybe one is assume that you resorted to personal insults...
Where exactly did I use an insult!?
I usually go to great lengths to avoid personal insults in my posts. Saying that you do not understand something is an insult!?
I gladly admit I do not understand many things, from brain surgery to rocket science. When it comes to photography, there are still many things I do not understand there either. For instance, how Canon E-TTL II flash metering really works. If someone points it out I do not feel offended a bit. Nor stupid.
Compare that ("you do not understand") with your choice of insults: idiotic, moronic, dim, etc.
So here's your chance, go on and prove there is no hypocrisy or ignorance regarding colour grading and B&W in PJ competitions...
That it is "hypocrisy and ignorance" is just your opinion, as well as some other members of this forum. I stated clearly, as well as others, in numerous previous posts, my strong disagreement with such a philosophy, as well as my general views on veracity in photography in general and B&W in particular. I have no intention to continue to beat that dead horse, especially not with someone who preemptively dismisses opposing views as "idiotic, moronic, dim."
...explain... why I'm too stupid to understand B&W...
I really wouldn't know why.
-
Pirelli both touched the skies and trawled the bottom of the pond ...
I don't disagree with many of your points, Rob. It's worth noting, though, that the 'Pirelli' at the turn of the millennium was, and still is, a very different beast to the earlier years. Their motives and strategy also changed not least 'vis a vis' the calendar.
Truth to tell, some of the productions from Pentax, where Sam Haskins alternated with Hans Feurer, were every bit as good, if not actually better ..
Most definitely.
Terry Richardson has done them? Well if you want talk about a photographer who does porn … He also has a bad reputation for abusing his position of power (http://jezebel.com/5495699/exclusive-more-models-come-forward-with-allegations-against-fashion-photographer/1443682521/@drgonzo).
Richardson was a mistake, in more ways than one. Not matter how good a photographer is or is deemed to be, there's a line that if you cross, your 'art' no longer speaks for itself but reflects your values as a human being and your regard (or rather disregard for others). Don't wish to comment further other than to say that it's lamentable that apart from 'W' (?), the other glossies continued using him - Carine Roitfeld and Anna Wintour notwithstanding. It's one thing to use Kate Moss, after a few lines of cocaine, quite another to turn a blind eye to the likes of Richardson.
-
Slobodan and Rob,
you guys repeatedly argue for a very privileged view of what is art and what isn't. You freely profess to judge what is good art and what is not worthy. That act of pride is certainly as egotistical as any narcissistic selfie photographer.
As for why it matters that we recognize all forms of expression as valid artistic endeavors...
You have undoubtedly heard the expression history is written by the victors. There is a related concept that history is written by the aristocracy. Because of this we have precious little information about the common human experience of the middle ages or the 18th century or the classical period. We have some anthropological research that has tried to make good guesses, but as for the thoughts and ideas of a common person, we are a complete blank. We have writings from the wealthy or the aristocratic, or other important people, but no writings (or exceedingly few) from the point of view of common folks. It is a modern phenomenon that regular (common) folks are able to write and possibly have their work exhibited or published. Certainly it is an even more contemporary phenomenon that regular folks have access to imaging and publishing venues. We all understand this as the Internet and digital revolution we have lived through in the last fifteen years.
In the year 1066, a pottery bowl was just a bowl, but today, that common artifact is sold for thousands of dollars and is displayed as art. The common artifacts of life become art. The ability to see and understand that today before time has passed, allows us to view our place in history with a little bit more detached understanding. The elitist view of art being only in the forms you have understood from the past, is a narrow-minded point of view that lacks the wisdom of the ages.
-
Marc, I have one word for you then: mastardization*
Besides, I always thought that belonging to an elite in anything is usually the highest compliment one can get (not that I count myself there).
* Yes, I coined it in my egotistical act of narcissistic pride, in the sense of "mass bastardization."
-
Slobodan and Rob,
1. you guys repeatedly argue for a very privileged view of what is art and what isn't. You freely profess to judge what is good art and what is not worthy. That act of pride is certainly as egotistical as any narcissistic selfie photographer.
As for why it matters that we recognize all forms of expression as valid artistic endeavors...
2. You have undoubtedly heard the expression history is written by the victors. There is a related concept that history is written by the aristocracy. Because of this we have precious little information about the common human experience of the middle ages or the 18th century or the classical period. We have some anthropological research that has tried to make good guesses, but as for the thoughts and ideas of a common person, we are a complete blank. We have writings from the wealthy or the aristocratic, or other important people, but no writings (or exceedingly few) from the point of view of common folks. It is a modern phenomenon that regular (common) folks are able to write and possibly have their work exhibited or published. Certainly it is an even more contemporary phenomenon that regular folks have access to imaging and publishing venues. We all understand this as the Internet and digital revolution we have lived through in the last fifteen years.
3. In the year 1066, a pottery bowl was just a bowl, but today, that common artifact is sold for thousands of dollars and is displayed as art. The common artifacts of life become art. The ability to see and understand that today before time has passed, allows us to view our place in history with a little bit more detached understanding.
4. The elitist view of art being only in the forms you have understood from the past, is a narrow-minded point of view that lacks the wisdom of the ages.
Numeration and italicisation of the above is mine - Rob C
1. Were that so, wouldn't I have to be in a privileged position to argue the point as you write that I do? I learned everything I know about art fom my mother, her books, and the frequent visits to public art galleries to which she dragged me during the war. Blitz notwithstanding. No golden keys, I'm afraid. A few golden friends once upon a time, but that was in the past when things were different for everybody.
2. The doings of the 'common folk', who were almost surely illiterate and too involved in earning a crust to worry unduly about matters of self-expression, are probably not fully recorded because there was nothing much to record. When you share your four walls with the cows and the pigs, for warmth as well as because there's nowhere else to go, you ain't gonna feel high on art. You may well feel high, but it ain't on art.
Why do you feel that being able to arrive at some sort of informed conclusion about what may or may not be fine/high/acceptable/poor or any other form of art demands a base of privilege and/or elitism? All the museums let you in, you can see whatever you want to see and if you don't that's your choice. I have no access to private galleries - can't remember Elton ever inviting me in, not even sure I'd accept - Karl has never asked me down to the south of France either. No need: art has been democratic all of my lifetime.
3. In 1066 they showed more good sense in some things than we do today. A pot is a pot is just a pot. That rarity lends it value isn't a measure of it's intrinsic worth, it's a measure of the price some people are willing to pay for things that are rare. Rare is not necessarily about art; it is certainly about rarity. If rarity equates with art, we may all just as well say goodnight and turn down the wicks.
4. That's a tiny bit convoluted; are you then stating that to appreciate and understand old art is elitist? That's a bit odd. Or are you attempting to indicate that only contemporary art or even art-yet-to-come has democratic, non-elitist values? Is your value structure in this exchange we are enjoying based upon politics or art? I find it difficult to combine the two concepts. I understand that 'old' art was the work child of established religious influences and wealth: is that why it's wrong and anti-democratic and terribly elitist? Actually, you should really be thankful for all of those dreadful tyrants who were instrumental in its very production. Without them, there wouldn't be any art in those museums. And consequently, without that background of established appreciation for such things, nothing would exist today, because today's bright lot are perfectly willing to admit that from the 'privilege' of those elite art colleges they were able to attend, they learned the trick of standing on the shoulders of giants.
Rob C
-
...The common artifacts of life become art...
You got it wrong, kid.
What becomes art is when an artist elevates a common artifact of life into art. There are gazillion Campbell soup cans out there, yet only one ended up as art.
I have no doubt that some of today selfies will end up as art in the future. When and if they do, it won't make the gazillion other selfies art.
-
You got it wrong, kid.
What becomes art is when an artist elevates a common artifact of life into art. There are gazillion Campbell soup cans out there, yet only one ended up as art.
I have no doubt that some of today selfies will end up as art in the future. When and if they do, it won't make the gazillion other selfies art.
Yep, and over and over and depressingly yet over and over again. Almost ad infinitum. Marilyn and Elvis got off more easily. As 'art', I meant.
Rob C
-
Do not know about art, but selfies are apparently making history already. From the Department of Inappropriate Presidential Selfies:
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/410441600524091392/photo/1
I am glad the First Lady strongly disapproved. ;)
-
Besides, I always thought that belonging to an elite in anything is usually the highest compliment one can get (not that I count myself there).
I think as a Senior Member of the Lula forum with over 4000 posts you are considered to belong to an elite....
-
Where exactly did I use an insult!?
I usually go to great lengths to avoid personal insults in my posts. Saying that you do not understand something is an insult!?
I gladly admit I do not understand many things, from brain surgery to rocket science. When it comes to photography, there are still many things I do not understand there either. For instance, how Canon E-TTL II flash metering really works. If someone points it out I do not feel offended a bit. Nor stupid.
Compare that ("you do not understand") with your choice of insults: idiotic, moronic, dim, etc.
That it is "hypocrisy and ignorance" is just your opinion, as well as some other members of this forum. I stated clearly, as well as others, in numerous previous posts, my strong disagreement with such a philosophy, as well as my general views on veracity in photography in general and B&W in particular. I have no intention to continue to beat that dead horse, especially not with someone who preemptively dismisses opposing views as "idiotic, moronic, dim."
...explain... why I'm too stupid to understand B&W...
I really wouldn't know why.
So you do not know why you think I'm too stupid to get B+W then. Do you really not get how specifically insulting that is. And yet magazine editors and clients seem to really like my B+W work. Maybe they don't get B+W either.
Sadly, yet again you avoid justifying your patronising comment about only some people getting B+W. Which as it has no basis in fact, is nothing more than an opinion. If however people say something that is plainly contradictory or hypocritical, ignore history or refuse to acknowledge basic facts, then pointing out how ignorant they is is not an opinion, it is a fact. And sticking to such ignorant/hypocritical viewpoints despite evidence otherwise is evidence of being pretty dim.
You do seem to be playing the snobbish, sneering elitist. And if you have no intention of repeating yourself, why start by
repeating yourself with your patronising views about other people not getting B+W and then refusing to back that up. That viewpoint has zero basis in fact and is the sort of thing trotted by people who like to look down on others. You are no different from those objecting to a heliocentric view of the our solar system or some crazy religious type who justifies their worship of their imaginary deity by saying, you gotta have faith or some other such sad platitude.
I'd say it is you that doesn't get B+W as if you think somehow that it is as truthful as colour. But I don't actually know if that is what you specifically think is the case, because as all you've done is be insulting.
If film had originally started in colour and B+W had only arrived with the advent of digital, all those who currently object to altering saturation slightly, but bizarrely are in favour of altering it hugely, would in all likelihood then be be berating B+W along with HDR for its lack of veracity.
Of all the viewpoints in photograph, it is one of the least defensible imaginable. So quite possibly that's why you won't or can't defend it.
-
Slobodan and Rob,
you guys repeatedly argue for a very privileged view of what is art and what isn't. You freely profess to judge what is good art and what is not worthy. That act of pride is certainly as egotistical as any narcissistic selfie photographer.
Ah, but they have better taste so their view counts for more. Few things more unaware than people claiming the art they prefer is better than the art other people like.
In the year 1066, a pottery bowl was just a bowl, but today, that common artifact is sold for thousands of dollars and is displayed as art. The common artifacts of life become art. The ability to see and understand that today before time has passed, allows us to view our place in history with a little bit more detached understanding. The elitist view of art being only in the forms you have understood from the past, is a narrow-minded point of view that lacks the wisdom of the ages.
This example undermines your other good points. The ordinary, but very old pottery bowl is not art, it is a museum piece. Any value it has is due to its historical relevance, not because it is deemed to be art. This means it may be displayed in a way very similar to art, but that is not what it is.
Modern pottery bowls, no matter how fancy their decoration would also not be art. Unless of course they were not actually for any use other than as an object d'art - then the bowl would be art, as being a bowl was not it's actual function.
-
Do not know about art, but selfies are apparently making history already. From the Department of Inappropriate Presidential Selfies:
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/410441600524091392/photo/1
I am glad the First Lady strongly disapproved. ;)
That's not a selfie, it's a groupie. :P
And badly captioned too as Obama is not actually taking it.
The most inappropriate thing is that David Cameron is there. He is a member of the political party that denigrated Mandela as a terrorist for years and he even went to South Africa in the 80s as part of group that opposed sanctions. But now he regrets that - only as it would lose him votes otherwise. But then I don't think he actually has any views of his own, he just says anything that he thinks most voters will support. Never known a politician flip-flop as much as he does.
-
...
This example undermines your other good points. The ordinary, but very old pottery bowl is not art, it is a museum piece. Any value it has is due to its historical relevance, not because it is deemed to be art. This means it may be displayed in a way very similar to art, but that is not what it is.
Modern pottery bowls, no matter how fancy their decoration would also not be art. Unless of course they were not actually for any use other than as an object d'art - then the bowl would be art, as being a bowl was not it's actual function.
A similar example would be cave paintings. Perhaps a decorated bowl (of which there are many) would make the point better. Even the most modest of utilitarian devices have been decorated (made into art) since the beginning of time. Guns, bowls, tomahawks, cave walls, and even dead people (mummys) are decorated to make them beautiful.
I didn't mean to make this into a debate on what is art, but we seem to devolve the fundamental debates whenever we carry a topic to its Nth degree. I tend to see art in the broadest and most inclusive ways. That isn't to say I mistake my broad definition of art art to indicate it is all good or uplifting, or beautiful, or valuable or insightful or whatever.
What I will say is this: Selfies will be a valuable form of art before long. An interesting selfie by a notable artist or figure or commoner will be sold by a reputable gallery before the decade is out. Selfies, even the profane or pornographic ones can certainly be considered art.
-
...So you do not know why you think I'm too stupid to get B+W then....
Where did I say I think you are stupid!? I said I do not know why you think you are stupid. Big difference. Where did I say you do not understand B&W!? I said you do not understand the difference between B&W and color, in the context you put it initially in. Big difference, again.
...as it has no basis in fact, is nothing more than an opinion...
Hallelujah!!! You finally got it! And here I thought it's been clear from the very beginning that all we are doing in these forums is exchanging opinions, especially when it comes to matters of art or taste, not purely technical information. In contrast to you, I do not peddle my opinions as facts.
... all those who currently object to altering saturation slightly, but bizarrely are in favour of altering it hugely...
Nothing bizarre about that, perfectly logical. If you, of course, understand the concept of transition from quantity to quality (Hegel at al). You do not have to be versed in philosophy though, just remember what happens to water when you change its temperature slightly (nothing) and hugely (turns into ice or steam). Change saturation in a color photograph slightly and you changed the mood and impact; change it hugely and you turned it into a B&W, which now has its own set of rules when it comes to mood and impact.
And just to be clear: I am equally against excessive manipulation of contrast, grain, vignetting, etc. when it comes to B&W in photojournalism, as it changes the mood and impact just as much as the change of saturation in color does. And to be perfectly clear again, I am not against manipulation in B&W (or color) photography in general, even if in photojournalism (e.g., Eugene Smith, often more editorial photojournalism (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b9YAXcLBwsU/Ts1-jPbwL7I/AAAAAAAAAss/g7LnYZk0Y-k/s1600/Schmidt1.jpg) than documentary). But I do consider that organizers of a PJ contest have every right to determine whether they would allow it or not. I also believe in full disclosure, even outside contests, for instance in newspapers and magazines, when it comes to editorialized photography (e.g. OJ's infamous dark portrayal on the front page of Time vs. Newsweek (http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/9/0/1/2901.jpg?v=1))
-
As for why it matters that we recognize all forms of expression as valid artistic endeavors...
An artistic endeavor is just that, an endeavor. Very few attempts at artwork become "works of art". A work of art that will stand the test of time. That's the Gold standard. Although the joy of making, makes process a wonderful endeavor....
Peter
-
As for why it matters that we recognize all forms of expression as valid artistic endeavors...
An artistic endeavor is just that, an endeavor. Very few attempts at artwork become "works of art". A work of art that will stand the test of time. That's the Gold standard. Although the joy of making, makes process a wonderful endeavor....
Peter
I think we agree in intent, in this, we are debating semantics.
Here are some of my selfiies. Sorry, no bums or junk will be shown in these shots. Let's see your selfies (we saw Slobodan's)? You all have them. You know it is true.
-
What becomes art is when an artist elevates a common artifact of life into art. There are gazillion Campbell soup cans out there, yet only one ended up as art.
One of the Campbell's soup cans did not end up as art.
A painting of various Campbell's soup cans...
-
One of the Campbell's soup cans did not end up as art.
A painting of various Campbell's soup cans...
Maybe Slobodan was thinking of something more like Duchamps urinal...the one and only urinal as art. ;) ;D
-
Is someone suggesting Campbell's is selling urine in cans?
Rob C
-
Is someone suggesting Campbell's is selling urine in cans?
Rob C
Where's your selfie? You know you have one. I showed you mine, why won't you show me yours? ??? :-* ;D
-
Duchamps urinal...the one and only urinal as art.
I may have this wrong, but I seem to think that the urinal was returned to the store and later another was needed for display - so actually not "the one and only".
Then there's the question of attribution (http://janechafinsofframpgalleryblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/duchamps-urinal-maybe-not.html).
-
Where's your selfie? You know you have one. I showed you mine, why won't you show me yours? ??? :-* ;D
My selfish pleasure.
http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/6931460_orig.jpg
http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/5783791_orig.jpg
Two for the price of one.
To tell you the unvarnished truth, ever damned shot that I do is a selfie at one level or another.
Rob C
-
I think we've started off on the wrong foot.
I am now ready to offer my unconditional, full, 120% (raberized math) support for selfies... of the following kind:
-
My selfish pleasure.
http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/6931460_orig.jpg
http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/5783791_orig.jpg
Two for the price of one.
To tell you the unvarnished truth, ever damned shot that I do is a selfie at one level or another.
Rob C
Cool selfies. I agree that every shot is a selfie in some regard. It seems like we bothlike to see our selfies blurred or distorted beyond obvious recognition.
-
Cool selfies. I agree that every shot is a selfie in some regard. It seems like we bothlike to see our selfies blurred or distorted beyond obvious recognition.
I can't speak for you, but for myself, there's no doubt that all later selfies have that tendency. I am more blurred as I age - both physically as well as in the mind. I don't mean that I can't understand the things I could as a younger person, just that the truth behind those understandings is no longer cast in stone, and that what seemed absolutley right and beyond reasonable doubt no longer seems that way today. Perhaps it's the accumulated weakness caused from too many external opinions crushing in on me over the years, maybe it's just that I have not the self-confidence in my own positions anymore - I can't really say, honestly, but I do feel that a general air of bemusement pervades my being these days. People that I meet regularly seem to become slightly different people depending on the day; one chap I know bought a twenty-something year-old old banger (car - not edible) for 400 euros a couple of weeks ago; it broke down on the motorway en route to the airport and has ended up costing him over a grand... why not simply dump it and cut his losses before blowing a further 600 euros? Other's drink themselves stupid and then go off the bottle for a week and think that now all is okay, that they are perfectly healthy again and, importantly, in control!, so the following week they find themselves legless again, and so the cycle continues to freewheel down the hill.
No wonder selfies might appear to be less than distinct... Miss KK might be advised to take note and buy a Softar lll. Unless she learns some technique, of course.
Rob C
-
I can't speak for you, but for myself, there's no doubt that all later selfies have that tendency. I am more blurred as I age - both physically as well as in the mind. I don't mean that I can't understand the things I could as a younger person, just that the truth behind those understandings is no longer cast in stone, and that what seemed absolutley right and beyond ressonable doubt no longer seems that way today.
Apropos to your thoughts is the Oscar Wilde quote, a favorite of mine: "I am too old to know everything."
-
Apropos to your thoughts is the Oscar Wilde quote, a favorite of mine: "I am too old to know everything."
WHOOPS! "I am not YOUNG enough to know everything."
-
WHOOPS! "I am not YOUNG enough to know everything."
Pretty much the same concern - but thanks for quoting: made me see that my dyslexic fingers had managed to survive an edit: ressonable, indeed!
I'm not joking: I seem to spend as much time hitting keys twice as I do thinking of what to write in the first place!
Rob C
-
So far only three of us have been brave enough and narcissistic enough to show our selfies to the whole LuLa world. Maybe I should start another forum topic called..."Show me your Selfie"
-
... I seem to spend as much time hitting keys twice as I do thinking of what to write in the first place!
But that must be good, no? Imaging hitting it only once, thus halving the thinking time? ;)
-
...Maybe I should start another forum topic called..."Show me your Selfie"
Pssst! Just do not let (former) congressman Weiner find out! ;)
-
Pssst! Just do not let (former) congressman Weiner find out! ;)
I don't know what you are worried about. It was just a head shot.
-
I don't know what you are worried about. It was just a head shot.
I heard that men have just enough blood in their bodies for one head at a time ;D
-
I heard that men have just enough blood in their bodies for one head at a time ;D
That's why they fear heart attacks and the consequential damage... one big blood test or, worse, series of them and your number's up - or down, as the case may be and usually is. You think Dracula was an invention? He was the orginal Viagra, the self-renewing fountain of old youth. Blue blood - blue pills. Or blue books, which I believe have some sort of temporary effect as well. Ironically, I only read them when I had no need for them. Life is clearly a nonsense, a mockery of logic.
Rob C
P.S. As an afterthought: would the writing of a blue novel be a form of literary masturbation, self-titilation or desperation? All three? Would a long one be an epic?
-
Saw this selfie (http://petapixel.com/2014/02/06/high-school-girl-takes-selfie-cadaver-wins-vote-repulsive-selfie/) that goes to another level and was reminded of this thread from a while back.
-
Saw this selfie (http://petapixel.com/2014/02/06/high-school-girl-takes-selfie-cadaver-wins-vote-repulsive-selfie/) that goes to another level and was reminded of this thread from a while back.
I saw that and found it kind of amusing. I know it was a foolish and insensitive thing for the girl to do, but in another way, who cares. They body is dead. You can't imagine the kind of insensitive things that the med school students say and do with those bodies.