Elitism

catem · Jul 10, 2006

Maris said:
But most folks jump into forever with little ....

In fact, isn't it with nothing.....

Your sentiments ring true - except there's always the point that some artists (photographers, whatever) are only fully appreciated some time after their death. During their life they were never part of any kind of acknowledged group, or élite.

So where does that leave us with regard to a consideration of élites in photography? I would argue, and I'm not using this expression disrespectfully, but because I have noticed where you come from and because I am half Aussie myself - quite possibly firmly up a gum tree.

EdGreene · Jul 16, 2006

If by "elite" you mean snob...

That is one take. But if by "Elite" you mean "highly trained" or highly skilled", they deserve to be listened to.

Highly trained and highly skilled fits me. On Internet forums though, too many times that is taken to mean "snob".

Roger Hicks · Jul 16, 2006

EdGreene said:
That is one take. But if by "Elite" you mean "highly trained" or highly skilled", they deserve to be listened to.

Highly trained and highly skilled fits me. On Internet forums though, too many times that is taken to mean "snob".

True. And consider how many people use 'intellectual' or 'liberal' as a term of abuse, too. I'd be flattered to be called the former and cheerfully call myself the latter.

Cheers,

Roger

bjorke · Jul 16, 2006

Another common element I've perceived among those who criticize "elitism" is a desire to any damned indulgent thing they like and not have anyone tell them they suck at it. So they attack the messenger as elitist or try to dump all qualitative distinctions as somehow being beneath them. It is hard to suppress laughter whenever I see this.

I wonder if THEY see it though?

jd callow · Jul 16, 2006

bjorke said:
Another common element I've perceived among those who criticize "elitism" is a desire to any damned indulgent thing they like and not have anyone tell them they suck at it. So they attack the messenger as elitist or try to dump all qualitative distinctions as somehow being beneath them. It is hard to suppress laughter whenever I see this.

I wonder if THEY see it though?

My problem with elitism is that it assumes that a few hold some special distinction over everyone else. The distinction seldom holds-up under scrutiny or over time.

I haven't a problem with elitists except that their arrogance tends to be annoying and by definition there is no talking to them on a one to one.

I love the elite, there are a couple people here on apug who are, for me, the best and I enjoy the heck out of talking to them.. The problem is that one person's elite can be anything from a moron to an alien to another.

There is no (or atleast no defendable reason for a) superclass.

catem · Jul 16, 2006

jd callow said:
There is no (or atleast no defendable reason for a) superclass.

Isn't that what's so good about the internet?

Or maybe it's what some people hate about the internet.

The idea of an élite was raised initially with specific reference to this forum. I would like to think of this forum as a community, not a hierarchy (which is an inevitable condition of the existence of an acknowledged élite) and as a true community that it values all its members equally and believes that everyone can offer something good and worthwhile. That doesn't mean that it is not able to acknowledge its 'elders', but it means it does not need to pay undue attention to status as such..

We may not all be 'experts' or 'elders' (both better terms, in general I think than élite and far less value-laden), but no-one is expert in all areas or all the time and we can all offer different kinds of insight and experience - even heaven forbid, photographic ones. I would like to think that members believe we can all learn at times from each other.

bjorke · Jul 16, 2006

All known forums and photographs are made for and by and with the equipment, trappings, and social occasion of primates. They will do what they do, and one thing they certainly do is force hierarchy into everything that they do. Ain't no do-do

catem · Jul 16, 2006

Well, I have to agree. Speaking very generally here, having status as part of an élite - real or imagined - in no way makes anyone immune from making an ape of themselves

DBP · Jul 16, 2006

jd callow said:
There is no (or atleast no defendable reason for a) superclass.

If you start from a particular set of assumptions, logic leads almost inevitably to an esatblished ruling class. And the assumptions all seem pretty benign when you start. The dangerous part is the notion that a group of people would somehow know themselves to belong in the superclass and should therefore take it upon themselves to control the lives of others. The problem is as old as human history, and the philosphical underpinnings go back at least as far as Plato (see The Republic, or worse, The Laws).

Reasoning from pure logic is dangerous. One should always stop and check one's theory against reality from time to time.

Facts are stubborn things - John Adams

jd callow · Jul 16, 2006

The point, however badly written, was as writen. A better way to say it might be "There are no super humans."

EdGreene · Jul 28, 2006

I belong(ed) to an "elite": Military Paratroopers (Heavy Weapons Infantry). I am (of)an "elite" in that I established a newspaper from scratch.
"Elite" to me then means a "Mark", if not of exclusion, then of accomplshment: Lance Armstrong for example. Can you tell Lance or me from any other at a glance? No, not until we do what makes us "elite".

Soon enough, we who shoot film will constitute an "elite" of sorts, especially those of us who insist* on shooting manual focus gear.
*When an affectation makes one "elite".

Pentax LX, Super Program(2), K-1000
Canon F1, T-90

don sigl · Jul 28, 2006

gr82bart said:
The internet makes people think they are a lot more elite/more important/more righteous/more persecuted/more censored/more picked on/more whatever than they are in reality. It makes for good drama.

Ever notice it's always men? Geeky, nerdy men too...

Regards, Art. (D'oh! That last sentence will get me to the Star Chamber....)

I probably wouldn't qualify as a geek, but I feel there is some substance to your point addressing the internet drama. Maybe its just easier to be annoyed by other people when communicating in the channel.....In the real world I would probably just walk away from someone who extols some point that I feel is misinformed, ridiculous or makes no sense, but on the internet, I might comment on what I interpret as idiocy.
On reflection, this is probably not a good way to react to other points of view....but if you're driving under the speed limit in the passing lane...I'm probably going to comment.

Elitism

catem

EdGreene

Roger Hicks

bjorke

jd callow

Moderator

catem

bjorke

catem

DBP

jd callow

Moderator

EdGreene

don sigl

Elitism

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency