Can a prints technical brilliance overtake the subject matter?

Ed Sukach · Feb 24, 2005

Tom Stanworth said:
Ed, not an acid test. I just (genuinely) thought it would be interesting for you to share why you like the art mentioned.

Sorry, but I don't remember "The art mentioned". Please refresh me -- what / where was it?

Tom Stanworth · Feb 24, 2005

Ed,

Renoir's Torse au soleil.

Tom

Ed Sukach · Feb 24, 2005

Tom Stanworth said:
Ed,
Renoir's Torse au soleil.
Tom

Ah!! I do NOT have a clue why that fascinates / enraptures me.

I don't CARE why it does, either!!

David H. Bebbington · Feb 25, 2005

Will S said:
Save the file to jpeg then open it up in your web browser from your file system, and it should look exactly like what you will see when it is downloaded from the website.

On investigation, this proves to be true - the e-mail step is not necessary. It is still very odd, however, that there is such a difference between viewings of the same file with Photoshop and a web browser!

Tom Stanworth · Feb 25, 2005

Ed Sukach said:
Ah!! I do NOT have a clue why that fascinates / enraptures me.

I don't CARE why it does, either!!

Do you really have no idea at all -honestly? Are you not able to describe how you are affected by it, even if in the crude terms of 'how it makes you feel' or 'I like it 'cos.....'?

The fact that you say you don't care seems strange to me. If your position is that 'I don't care about anything as long as I like it' thats fine. However, does that not suggest that you are only picking up the cloudiest message from art you view. Are your emotional responses to art so simple (like/dislike) that you cannot find words to describe them? I doubt this. It would appear to be an unwillingness to discuss it. If you are not prepared to even ask yourself a simple question giving insight into what has been discussed, why do you involve yourself in such discussions? You have taken a view counter to mine, which is fine. Yet you are not prepared to give insight into what you like about a favourite piece of art and why? The question I ask is highly relevant to questions posed (by myself and others) and is at the centre of this thead.

Claire Senft · Feb 25, 2005

different strokes for different folks.

There are many different printing styles. As an example I like the way Howard Bond and John Sexton print. I do not care for Bruce Barnbaum's printing style...which to me seems overblown and grandiose. But he is not making prints for me.

Lee Shively · Feb 25, 2005

Some prints are about technical brilliance. Some prints are about subject matter.

Will S · Feb 25, 2005

David H. Bebbington said:
On investigation, this proves to be true - the e-mail step is not necessary. It is still very odd, however, that there is such a difference between viewings of the same file with Photoshop and a web browser!

Sometimes email will convert the file to a MIME version (which is just ASCII text) and then decode it again back to jpeg when you receive it. But that wouldn't change anything in the file content either. Mr. Callow's post explains it pretty well I think. There was another post on Apug recently about scanning and what to do to make it better as well.

Love your Bowie pic! That shirt is the best.

Will

Ed Sukach · Feb 25, 2005

Tom Stanworth said:
Do you really have no idea at all -honestly? ...
... Yet you are not prepared to give insight into what you like about a favourite piece of art and why? The question I ask is highly relevant to questions posed (by myself and others) and is at the centre of this thead.

Tom, you have habit of making assumptions which is very annoying.

I've never said "I don't care about anything." I CARE that Torse au soleil DOES affect me. I don't care WHY it does. Hopefully you will be able to recognize the distinction here.
I've already said "How it makes me feel" - what my reactions to it are.

"Does that not say (I) am not picking up the cloudiest message from art (I) view?"
No. it doesn't.

"Are (my) emotional responses so simple ... that (I) cannot find words to describe them?"
This is obviously rhetorical... BUT... NO! I think my responses are so complex that it would take a great deal of words to describe them ... and I am, frankly, tired of having to defend each and every word.

.... "And yet, you are not prepared to give insight into what you like about a favorite piece of art and why? .... and that is at the centre of this thread?"

Go back to the title of this thread, Tom. It asks about technical characteristics in relation to merit - nothing like, "How to we explain or justify our aesthetics, or, how and why we like something".

I'm not prepared??
not relevant. I simply choose to DO rather than continue talking about it.

I get the impression (I recognize that I could be wrong) that you are on something like a crusade to correct those who do not have intellectual reasoning behind their work. That is me - definitely me. I chose to - and WILL continue to work from an emotional base. The apparently supremely important, to you, "WHY", is nothing like a major consideration to me - and never will be.

Tom Stanworth · Feb 25, 2005

Ed,

I am on no crusade. I think the sense behind my question should be obvious as is it's relevance to the thread title. I have explained the 'logic thread' time and time again. I can either deduce from this that you do not understand it or that you are unwilling to volunteer information which might jeapordise the sense of your line of argument. Either way, further discussion is futile.

Tom

Ed Sukach · Feb 25, 2005

Tom Stanworth said:
Ed,
I can either deduce from this that you do not understand it or that you are unwilling to volunteer information which might jeapordise the sense of your line of argument. Either way, further discussion is futile.
Tom

You deduce ... "that I do not understand" ??? What would lead you to believe that I DO understand? Mindless agreement with everything you say? - or that I roll over and play dead?
I'm glad you keep this so impersonal, Tom.

However, I am glad to see, and I agree, that continuing here is futile.

-30-

Claire Senft · Feb 25, 2005

a vacation

Tom, could you perhaps benefit from three weeks in Tahiti?

Tom Stanworth · Feb 25, 2005

Claire,

The lottery win would need to come first. Spain next week will just have to do!

The reason behind my continuation with the discussion had been because I did not agree with certain lines of argument put forward by others and they did not agree with me. I certainly did not expect Ed to fall over and agree with me! I was certain that this would not happen. The silly bit comes when people take an opposing line (fine) but then refuse to explain their contrary views or answer simple questions about these views. Seems a bit pointless to discuss opinion or thoughts and refuse to explain them or substantiate them even if those explanations could easily be subjective. It is a case of, 'I dont agree with you, but I want you to accept my contrary view because you should. I will not explain it or allow you to question it in any way because it is my opinion....' I think that this sort of approach always kills any debate or discussion in its tracks. No progress can ever be made because even when you stray off what is opinion or not, people stick to the same old line, 'it is my opinion and thats all there is to it.....elephants are pink and my opinion is as valid as yours." Ed answered none of the questions pertinent to the thread. Not one. Instead, responding with another question as a politician would and remaining contrary throughout. I cannot think of a single (sensible) reason why he would remain in the discussion yet refuse to answer questions posed or elaborate on comments made (which he expects to be respected just because 'anything anyone says is as valid as the next person'.. I have been open to quesions throughout and have answered them and tried to explain my views wherever possible. He has not. Michael, and respect this, did. Seeing as Eds first post seemed to be in response to my perceived attack on Michael, I find it ironic that Michael was able to move things on constructively where Ed was not

I just dont respect this approach, just as Ed does not repect what I guess he would see as 'continued beligerance designed to win'. I can live with that and feel not the slightest bit of animostiy towards him......despite what he may think.

Tom

blansky · Feb 25, 2005

Tom, not that I agree with you or disagree on this thread, but you will find that any argument/exchange of opinions with Ed is much like that "Whack the Gopher" game.

You make a statement and the reply comes from over there, then you try to clarify and it pops up from another over there. There is never a straight line in the discussion.

You'll find that there are a lot more interesting ways to spend your time.

Michael

jd callow · Feb 25, 2005

Have you ever played 'Slap the Spice Girl?' That has to be the Internet's greatest contributions to society.

blansky · Feb 25, 2005

mrcallow said:
Have you ever played 'Slap the Spice Girl?' That has to be the Internet's greatest contributions to society.

Sounds like a great idea, but I thought free porn was the internet's greatest contribution.

Michael

Ed Sukach · Feb 25, 2005

Tom Stanworth said:
Claire,
Ed answered none of the questions pertinent to the thread. Not one. Instead, responding with another question as a politician would and remaining contrary throughout. I cannot think of a single (sensible) reason why he would remain in the discussion yet refuse to answer questions posed or elaborate on comments made (which he expects to be respected just because 'anything anyone says is as valid as the next person'..

Tom, I already wrote -30-. I had agreed about the futility ... but this won't go away, will it?

I was not evading the question. I was answering as truthfully and openly as I could. I understand, and respect your position ... although I have another - polarly opposite. I've replied "I don't know", and "I think it is unknowable". Those are answers, whether you agree with them or not.

I will not "tip-toe around". You have an "I win - You lose" - or something like that goal. I do not -- there is NO "win-lose" ... only, and hopefully, a greater understanding of each other.

Hmmm ... my memory must be getting bad ... I seem to remember, from some message or other - someone accusing another of "cheap shots". (Rhetorical) I wonder if there is anything around here that would fit that description?

I'll try again : -30-

jd callow · Feb 25, 2005

blansky said:
Sounds like a great idea, but I thought free porn was the internet's greatest contribution.

Michael

Yeah, but they aren't free and a jpeg will never be as good as holding it in your hand.

David H. Bebbington · Feb 25, 2005

Question: Dorothy Parker is alleged to have once said:
"If all the chorus girls in the Ziegfield Follies were laid end to end, I wouldn't be at all surprised!"

Can anyone tell me what the effect would be [if any] of laying all the postings on this thread end to end? It seems to me that in a zillion words almost nothing has been said at all!

blansky · Feb 25, 2005

mrcallow said:
Yeah, but they aren't free and a jpeg will never be as good as holding it in your hand.

Not going there.

Michael

mark · Feb 25, 2005

I don't know, "Slap the Spice Girl" was pretty good information.

blansky · Feb 25, 2005

David H. Bebbington said:
Question: Dorothy Parker is alleged to have once said:
"If all the chorus girls in the Ziegfield Follies were laid end to end, I wouldn't be at all surprised!"

Can anyone tell me what the effect would be [if any] of laying all the postings on this thread end to end? It seems to me that in a zillion words almost nothing has been said at all!

I think if more people were getting laid we wouldn't be having half of these discussions at all.

Michael

jd callow · Feb 25, 2005

David H. Bebbington said:
Question: Dorothy Parker is alleged to have once said:
"If all the chorus girls in the Ziegfield Follies were laid end to end, I wouldn't be at all surprised!"

Can anyone tell me what the effect would be [if any] of laying all the postings on this thread end to end? It seems to me that in a zillion words almost nothing has been said at all!

Did you read all of the posts? Outside of the obviously stupid (like my most recent), and those wishing to battle for the battle's sake, there were many good posts.

As mentioned before, Blansky's was one of the best, and shortest. Peter De Smidt also had an excellent post.

Baxter Bradford · Feb 25, 2005

This was the week that was:

1. When several APUGgers got RSI from contributing to this thread
2. This thread became so busy that Sean had to transfer to a dedicated server,
3. The site got attacked by the bots (sounds nasty and probably was), were they looking for this 'exchange of views' or something equally heated and friction based (last 6 posts cover this)
4. I managed to get out and actually take some pictures rather than monitor what had just been written, even if the Dorset beaches were freezing

Some technically fantastic prints leave me nearly as cold as a Dorset beach, others really strike a light.

Should we not just channel our energies into making images which speak louder than a thousand (or zillion) words?

(only 2 more to 150 posts!)

Tom Stanworth · Feb 25, 2005

Baxter,

RSI is for wimps.............................aaaarrrgggg that hurt.

Taking images, hmmmmm, are you stark raving mad? Why on earth would you want to do that?
I have a camera so that I can participate in arguments on this forum rather than use the forum to compliment my photography. First I identify which forums are out there then I buy the kit and start arguing

I am off to Wales this weekend then Spain for a week where I will be doing nothing apart from photography. Whoopee!

Tom

Can a prints technical brilliance overtake the subject matter?

Ed Sukach

Tom Stanworth

Ed Sukach

David H. Bebbington

Tom Stanworth

Claire Senft

Lee Shively

Will S

Ed Sukach

Tom Stanworth

Ed Sukach

Claire Senft

Tom Stanworth

blansky

jd callow

Moderator

blansky

Ed Sukach

jd callow

Moderator

David H. Bebbington

blansky

mark

blansky

jd callow

Moderator

Baxter Bradford

Tom Stanworth

Can a prints technical brilliance overtake the subject matter?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency