Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: Bullying as a substitute for Argument  (Read 33945 times)

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5781
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2015, 05:26:59 am »

If the images that you care most about are of your kids, spouse, father, you might not want those posted on the internet forever?

-h

I am not suggesting that someone posts every image they have taken ....only their "best" I have over 100 GB of images stored. How long would it take to process and post? ;) ;D

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2015, 05:32:31 am »

How many of the greatest jazz musicians ever went to 'jazz school' and learnt musical theory? They picked up an instrument guitar, learnt to play it and listened to shed loads of music from their peers and played what 'felt right' to them. Many of them couldn't even read music.

Most jazz musicians, certainly the top ones, all knew and know music theory, including esoteric music theory.  Of course, many of them did go to the conservatory (Miles and Monk went to Juilliard for example).  Those who didn't, sought out an entire curriculum on the subject within the community of practitioners, the richest faculty there is.  All understand the mathematics of harmony, and how things like substitutions and bitonal harmony work.  Coltrane sought out knowledge of synthetics, and subsequently broke new ground with them in his last years.  The legend of the "intuitive musician" is really a myth.  Yes, music makes use of intuitive processes, but you could never reproduce many years of musical innovation just by doing what "feels right".

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2015, 06:12:40 am »

But back to the OP, the request to see someone's pictures can have a variety of reasons behind it - sometimes (as has been said) a request to illustrate a specific technical point. But I agree it is also used to shut down argument (it has happened to me) where the person does not like what you say and they can safely ignore your unwelcome comment if your work bears no relation to what they believe they. are trying to achieve
I have also seen this tactic used in discussions. There may be many reasons why an individual cannot or will not share their images. It really depends on the discussion. Let's make up two caricatured (but still relevant) statements:

"In my award-winning portfolio, I have often relied heavily on my cameras large DR in order to capture the subtle details in deep shadows. Canon cameras never would have let me produce such stunning results"

Is it fair to request examples of ones portfolio after such a statement? Would it contribute to the discussion, or is it a sleazy tactic to silence an annoying participant, derail the discussion?

"If we assume that your camera is operating in the shot-noise-dominated regime, then 14 bits is sufficient to capture the information that can be present if saturation charge is less than X photons"

Is it fair to request demand examples of ones portfolio after such a statement? Would it contribute to the discussion, or is it a sleazy tactic to silence an annoying participant, derail the discussion?

-h
Logged

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2015, 06:16:55 am »

stamper,

Quote
Displaying images is the ultimate goal of taking them?

Not necessarily to the world.

Quote
There are a few who take them and only look at them themselves.

How have you determined this?

Quote
They probably think they are good...

What makes you consider this to be true?

Quote
...self praise is no praise?

False.

Quote
I don't think there is any reasonable excuse for not posting?

"I choose not to" is sufficient justification.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 07:11:06 am by AreBee »
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2015, 06:23:30 am »

Most jazz musicians, certainly the top ones, all knew and know music theory, including esoteric music theory.  Of course, many of them did go to the conservatory (Miles and Monk went to Juilliard for example).  Those who didn't, sought out an entire curriculum on the subject within the community of practitioners, the richest faculty there is.  All understand the mathematics of harmony, and how things like substitutions and bitonal harmony work.  Coltrane sought out knowledge of synthetics, and subsequently broke new ground with them in his last years.  The legend of the "intuitive musician" is really a myth.  Yes, music makes use of intuitive processes, but you could never reproduce many years of musical innovation just by doing what "feels right".
I do believe that there is a spectrum of "intuitive" vs "schooled" jazz (or lets say "rythmic" as opposed to classical) musicians. I think there is some truth (but most  wrongness to) claims that "you must go to school and learn theory to be a good musician", as "theory tends to make you into a bland copy of everyone else". The good ones are able to absorb what others have done before them (either through theory or listening). The remarkable ones are able to learn from the past and present _while_ consciously filtering out what they don't need and add something on top of that.

Joey DeFransesco supposedly does not know how to read written music. I find that remarkeable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_DeFrancesco

Pat Metheny, while obviously aware of musical theory have stated something (to the effect of, AFAIK) developing his own theory in parallell to what the rest of the world is doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Metheny

-h
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 06:32:56 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2015, 06:32:08 am »

...If you want to learn about the technology of photography, by all means avoid practitioners and flock to geek forums where you can kick tires all day long. If you want to learn photography, however...
I want to learn photography, and for me part of that learning process is understanding (relevant parts of) camera technology. I suspect that this is a result of my particular genetic mix, what I did as a kid, my education and what I do for a living. When I was an aspiring musician, I had a similar approach to writing and performing music.

When I ask a question about artistic parts of photography, I feel that my questions are usually politely adressed.

When I ask a question about technological parts of photography, I notice that a group of forum users are using deragatory language to make sure that I understand that such questions should not be asked in this club (terms like "geeks", "tire kickers", "measurebators" that are used by someone who seems to want to create the impression of "us vs them" while making it clear that "them" are less worthy). Some of these people also go to great lengths to inform the reader that the thread they actively sought out and replied to has no interest to them at all.

Why this hostility?

-h
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 06:39:52 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5781
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2015, 07:10:00 am »

stamper,

Not necessarily to the world.

How have you determined this?

What makes you consider this to be true?

False.

"I don't want to" is justification enough.

AreBee with respect to Reply#47 picking sentences out of context - my post#41 - without quoting the original post isn't something I am going to reply to. If you think they are somehow wrong then provide some evidence to the contrary.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 07:13:13 am by stamper »
Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #47 on: March 30, 2015, 07:51:57 am »

I do believe that there is a spectrum of "intuitive" vs "schooled" jazz (or lets say "rythmic" as opposed to classical) musicians. I think there is some truth (but most  wrongness to) claims that "you must go to school and learn theory to be a good musician", as "theory tends to make you into a bland copy of everyone else". The good ones are able to absorb what others have done before them (either through theory or listening). The remarkable ones are able to learn from the past and present _while_ consciously filtering out what they don't need and add something on top of that.

Joey DeFransesco supposedly does not know how to read written music. I find that remarkeable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_DeFrancesco

Pat Metheny, while obviously aware of musical theory have stated something (to the effect of, AFAIK) developing his own theory in parallell to what the rest of the world is doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Metheny

Well, we're not speaking of an "intuitive" versus "schooled" approach at all.  We're talking about a conservatory-schooled versus community-schooled approach.  The dangers of being conservatory-schooled have nothing to do with "theory".  You must learn theory regardless, even if you (somehow) believe you are going your own way.  The dangers of being schooled have to do with the limitations of learning the craft from at most one or two teachers, as well as the stultifying effects of the institution.  The wealth of knowledge about music and music theory is distributed around the community.  But the knowledge in the community is just as rigorous in its treatment of theory as anything in the conservatory, if not more so.

Don't put any bets on the idea that Joey DeFrancesco doesn't know theory inside and out.  As for Metheny, he's rather elementary, but has a "pretty" sound.  Few jazz musicians take him seriously as a jazz musician.

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #48 on: March 30, 2015, 09:13:48 am »

Well, we're not speaking of an "intuitive" versus "schooled" approach at all.  We're talking about a conservatory-schooled versus community-schooled approach.  The dangers of being conservatory-schooled have nothing to do with "theory".  You must learn theory regardless, even if you (somehow) believe you are going your own way.  The dangers of being schooled have to do with the limitations of learning the craft from at most one or two teachers, as well as the stultifying effects of the institution.  The wealth of knowledge about music and music theory is distributed around the community.  But the knowledge in the community is just as rigorous in its treatment of theory as anything in the conservatory, if not more so.
I think this is an interesting (although, possibly OT) discussion in itself.

When someone talked about "theory", I must admit that I connect that term with knowledge that have been accumulated in academic institutions. I.e. explanations for observations that have (hopefully) been published in some publication, scrutinized by fellow academics, generally accepted after some time, and eventually incorporated into some kind of canon for the field. Though I must admit that I know less about the process in human sciences than natural science.

When you seem to propose that skill learned through listening to great masters (on your own) or at jam-sessions or through informal meetings with fellow artists is also "theory", I think that is a confusing choice of terms.

I can agree that the mathematical structure behind choice of harmony, rhythm and melodic lines may well be similar as taught at a conservatory or at a jam-session, as it may be a matter of condensing (potentially) centuries and millions of culturally (or evolutionary) "preferred" patterns. I have 88 notes on my piano. For "musical theory" to be of any practical value to me playing, it has to say something about what notes to choose, when, how hard to strike them, in different contexts.
Quote
Don't put any bets on the idea that Joey DeFrancesco doesn't know theory inside and out.  
I mentioned him because I quite like his music. My reference was an interview he did 20 years ago or so (has it been so long?) where he specifically mentioned that he did not know how to read notes - at all. Obviously, this has not limited him from playing with some big shots and performances that (according to my preferences) are aesthetically "good".
Quote
As for Metheny, he's rather elementary, but has a "pretty" sound.  Few jazz musicians take him seriously as a jazz musician.
I think that is a discussion that leads about as far as a discussion about Peter Lik (or Ansel Adams) not being a serious photographer. They may or may not have done serious photography.

-h
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 09:23:08 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #49 on: March 30, 2015, 09:21:38 am »

Not sure where this belongs, but since I've seen dozens of posts in this particular board, I put it here.

A statement to the effect of "Show me your photos" is not an argument and in it's basest form is nothing short of bullying.  It is a tactic to intimidate in lieu of actual argument.  Photographic samples that prove, reinforce or refute an argument are always helpful, but that is not usually how these statements are made.  It is usually a blanket ultimatum intended to shut down debate from a particular poster.


Well, there is a certain poster who, on every thread on which he ever posts, uses it as a platform to cry out, "I own/shoot a Nikon D810."

If a person asks about a Canon model, there "you" are extolling the virtues of the D810 and DR, almost without exception.

Perhaps you are constantly being asked to show your work to see if your opinion is worth listening to or not ???



Being a master craftsman in some area does not always mean knowing the technical details.  Nor does knowing the details make one an expert.  Some details are unknown or unknowable and through experience we accept the cause and effect relationship that exists even if we don't fully understand the nature of the cause and effect.  This drives people like me nuts because I always want to know why.  But while an craftsman would like to know why, and may continue to strive to know why to better exploit the situation, in his execution he merely needs to know that it is.

Knowledge of technical details of equipment, if they can't be effectively applied to produce results, isn't "knowledge" ... it's pedantry.

I have seen a few posters debunk what you say, who themselves freely post their images, proving they are fully-capable of taking awesome images without the D810 ... and then kindly (and essentially) ask you to Put up or shut up about your equipment ...

And, true to form, rather than putting up great images of your own, this thread "whining about bullying" is your (predictable) response ...

Could it be that you are the bully, who was called to task ???

:D
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #50 on: March 30, 2015, 09:24:46 am »

Let's add a little perspective to this: Should a football coach (be that American also) or a boxing coach be able to play the sport well to prove its worth? Or are the art critics renowned for their work? Just saying.

Yes, they should. Or, at the very least, a football or boxing coach should be able to show they can produce a winning team before they can expect anyone to take their opinions seriously.

If one man is talking about "what it takes to win" in a particular sport ... and yet has never won or produced a winner ... while another man, who has won himself and/or produced winners, is giving opinions on the subject of winning ... whose "opinion" are you going to listen to?
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #51 on: March 30, 2015, 09:27:34 am »

Knowledge of technical details of equipment, if they can't be effectively applied to produce results, isn't "knowledge" ... it's pedantry.
There was this young patent clerk who published a few remarkeable scientific papers. AFAIK, he did not base his work on experiments carried out by himself (and to some degree none others, either?), and at least one of the predictions of the papers took many years to test. Do you think that his work was "pedantry"?

Perhaps, but in that case I would hope that I had some more pentry in me.

-h
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #52 on: March 30, 2015, 09:28:21 am »

Yes, they should. Or, at the very least, a football or boxing coach should be able to show they can produce a winning team before they can expect anyone to take their opinions seriously.
and players though shall take their opinion seriously before that, no ?
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #53 on: March 30, 2015, 09:33:22 am »

Yes, they should. Or, at the very least, a football or boxing coach should be able to show they can produce a winning team before they can expect anyone to take their opinions seriously.

If one man is talking about "what it takes to win" in a particular sport ... and yet has never won or produced a winner ... while another man, who has won himself and/or produced winners, is giving opinions on the subject of winning ... whose "opinion" are you going to listen to?
The problem is that those who have success (manage a winning football team or producing a ground-breaking scientific paper) occasionally  have too much confidence in their own ad-hoc theoretical claims ("eating cereal made my team winners", "my Canon camera has better red photons than your Sony camera"), and we the people tend to have too much faith in their claims.

That is the issue with appeal to authority; people may have success for many reasons besides complete intellectual insight into the process that led them there. Being a successful football coach may or may not be more about having self-confidence and motivation skills than managing the teams eating habits, but football coaches may never have the time or interest to successfully figure out. Whenever some coach have great results, he may (afterwards) write a book or do seminars about "how to be successful" without really contributing much to the world. It will probably sell like hot-cakes, though.


I'd be willing to admit that the photographer behind an "artistically good" image would be an interesting source for learning about the art of photography. For learning how ISO relates to visible noise, she may or may not be a good source, but I would rather lend an ear to a handful of people who have shown a deep interest in that particular topic, regardless of their own photographic ventures.

-h
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 09:42:34 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #54 on: March 30, 2015, 09:40:42 am »

The problem is that those who have success (manage a winning football team or producing a ground-breaking scientific paper) occasionally  have too much confidence in their own ad-hoc theoretical claims ("eating cereal made my team winners", "my Canon camera has better red photons than your Sony camera"), and we the people tend to have too much faith in their claims.

That is the issue with appeal to authority; people may have success for many reasons besides complete intellectual insight into the process that led them there. Being a successful football couch may or may not be more about having self-confidence and motivation skills than managing the teams eating habits, but football couches may never have the time or interest to successfully figure out. Whenever some couch have great results, he may (afterwards) write a book or do seminars about "how to be successful" without really contributing much to the world. It will probably sell like hot-cackes, though.

-h

I would say that this would be less of a problem than a coach, who's never won or produced a winner, pontificating about "winning" and "what it takes" to win ...

Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #55 on: March 30, 2015, 09:44:29 am »

I would say that this would be less of a problem than a coach, who's never won or produced a winner, pontificating about "winning" and "what it takes" to win ...
I think that you are argueing against straw-men. Are there forum posts here where people with no apparent artistic skill makes brave claims about how to take artistically good images?

If not, then what is it that you talk about?

-h
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #56 on: March 30, 2015, 09:55:14 am »

I think that you are argueing against straw-men. Are there forum posts here where people with no apparent artistic skill makes brave claims about how to take artistically good images?

If not, then what is it that you talk about?

-h

think about Emil Martinec (PhD) vs Mark Dubovoi (PhD) ... I can't recall Emil showing anything, but  ;D... and both were PhD in physics, if I am not mistaken

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14711
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #57 on: March 30, 2015, 09:55:38 am »

... I'd be willing to admit that the photographer behind an "artistically good" image would be an interesting source for learning about the art of photography. For learning how ISO relates to visible noise, she may or may not be a good source, but I would rather lend an ear to a handful of people who have shown a deep interest in that particular topic, regardless of their own photographic ventures.

Agreed... But how is that different from my claim that you quoted and labeled "hostile"?

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14711
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #58 on: March 30, 2015, 09:57:12 am »

think about Emil Martinec (PhD) vs Mark Dubovoi (PhD) ... I can't recall Emil showing anything, but  ;D... and both were PhD in physics, if I am not mistaken

Another straw-man argument, as no one ever asked them to show their pictures.

Torbjörn Tapani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
« Reply #59 on: March 30, 2015, 10:06:07 am »

I have seen the tactic before on other forums dealing with other topics, it's usually phrased: "how much do you bench?"
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15   Go Up