samstevens

I think you may have to settle for what you got! When's the last time you saw a user-requested software change on PN?

.

🤣🤣🤣

LOL. https://wapo.st/3v7hO52

A photo looks the way it does because of how it was made. Whether that’s of interest depends on the individual.

What if, on the other hand, people are interested in discussing ideas behind the use of different cameras and their effects on photographers and photos? Yes, many of the philosophy threads, going back decades on this site, have stayed active for months. It seems to be their nature. Given the lack of current activity on PN, I would think a thread remaining active would be welcome (certainly easily ignored if one isn’t interested). No one needs to participate. The simple solution to not appreciating the continuation of a thread that interests and invites participation from others is to change the channel.

I recommend a bit of American TV watching before coming to such ridiculous conclusions. I won’t defend, however, the gun sickness we continue to indulge in. I’m not sure PN is the best place, in any case, to indulge in societal or cultural stereotypes, as every culture represented here probably has many things going for it and a few glass houses on its landscape susceptible to stones being thrown.

An open enough description that seems to recognize that many people would see this work as soft-core serial photos and no more, even while some may authentically see more. I look at Mapplethorpe's work and see significance, but completely understand others seeing smut. Actually, that's part of my enjoyment of Mapplethorpe's work, to be honest. I'm drawn to much of Arbus's work but part of me is forced to deal with some of the challenges it poses and some of the very genuine disgusted reactions it receives. Rather than rejecting such reactions, I think they can be embraced as part of the life of the work. The photos are rich enough that they really don't need defending against those who are genuinely turned off by them. They only need to be recognized as doing so.

Not saying this is the case here, but more generally I'm wondering about the possibility that a photo could suggest a good sense of handling the camera, a good eye for composition, a good instinct for the moment, all guided by a juvenile/shallow/prurient/exploitive [any or all of these] purpose and sensibility.

Yes, that middle ground is likely where the majority of photographers are. Many are just doing their thing, not trying to be one of the greats, even when inspired by them. Looking around the Internet and reading some of what people say about their photography, some do seem to have visions of grandeur, and some seem contentedly self aware. Hopefully, all are getting something out of doing photography, regardless of their own self judgments. In this middle ground, discernment again comes in. I find it pretty easy to spot authenticity. Some authentic work is better than others and some I like more than others, but it’s nice to see people trying to develop a personal vision. It’s most often easy to spot the gimmicky vs. the substantive, work that’s simple vs. work that has ease, work that challenges vs. work that relies on tried and true tropes, work that exploits with a greater purpose and work that stays right in it. None of these are binary. It’s all a matter of degree and sometimes blurry edges. I’m not sure which specific photographer you’re referring to but, yes, there are cases that can initially fool me and that I have missed until I saw more there. That’s even happened with my own work, which is why I often look back at my archives, discovering photos I originally dismissed too quickly. Finally, another thought on subjectivity. One reason I like the critique forum is for the sharing and learning that can be at play. Others’ eyes and opinions can be a gift, even while maintaining one’s own core and objectives. For me, it’s not so much about giving or getting answers as much as it is about creating dialogue. Dialogue with others, with others’ work, with history, with culture, and with other mediums (such as painting, music, theater, sculpture) has a bit more objective character than strict monologue or soliloquy.. Of course, our inner dialogues are also crucial.

Should read “doesn’t suggest to me that many/most instances of softcore porn, hardcore porn, and art can’t be distinguished. [In other words, for the most part, this stuff is distinguishable.]

@httpwww.photo.netbarry, Thanks. Some interesting points and great examples to consider. Your post leads me back to discernment. Sure, Arbus, Araki, Moriyama, Newton, and Mapplethorpe were controversial (and had their detractors for it). But, if we're talking about nudity or presentations of sexuality, I think we're talking not just about exploitation and/or titillation. With all these photographers, there's an inherent (sometimes rather natural-seeming and often very authentic) sense of provocation. I think provocation can be a strong artistic marker. In most of the work of those mentioned above, there's also a raw emotional approach that's palpable. Now, to me it's obvious, to others it not might be, what the difference is between what those photographers are producing and what some folks on internet sites are giving us in the category of nudes or related genres. It's like comparing a Sam Shepard play to a Hallmark afterschool special on teen romance. If folks are attracted to the Hallmark stuff and take messages from it and are content to call that art, more power to them. Thankfully, I don't have to go along with that. And I'm comfortable being critical of Hallmark stuff within the context of a discussion on art. While there are various sensitivities to the exploitation of women in photography and I can respect those who might be more or less sensitive than I am, some degree of discernment tells me that there's a difference between softcore porn, hardcore porn, and art. That doesn't mean that those lines won't be blurred by some of the more provocative artists among us, which is why art can generate such strong debate and emotional responses. But that those lines can be blurred doesn't suggest to me that many/most instances of softcore porn, hardcore porn, and art can be distinguished. As you said, and as mentioned above in this thread, a lot of this is cultural. A lot is also influenced by what curators bring to public view, what patrons will pay for, and what will keep museum doors opened. So, in that sense, the eye of each beholder has already had their vision directed by various thumbs on the scales. Yes, we can still decide for ourselves, or at least feel like we're deciding for ourselves. But those decisions we each make don't happen in a vacuum. They happen with all kinds of outside forces already at play on us. Interestingly, the Internet may be changing that. Because it allows us to be exposed to more unfiltered and un-"approved" work, which keeps the intermediaries more out of the picture. Unfortunately, the Internet is run by multi-billion dollar corporations with execs who will manipulate anything to make another buck, and influencers and google search algorithms are playing a larger and larger role. So, behold you may. But you may just be beholden to a skewed mathematical formula for the privilege.

My acceptance of others doesn’t extend to looking at photos uncritically. I don’t consider art criticism to be non-acceptance of others in the way you’re using it.

Back in the 60s, my mom sat me down and suggested that some of my ways of speaking and gesturing were effeminate. I didn't have the tools at the time to deal with this description in any other way but to take it to heart and become conscious (self conscious) of my behavior, trying to adjust it. This was not an unusual experience for many gay men of my age, who heard this kind of thing from parents, clergy, kids on the schoolyard, civic leaders, and others. I knew and still know my mom loved me and cared, and was a product of her era and culture. That was then. The only coherent response I can come up with to such usage today is, well ...