Everyone gets a trophy

[Roger Thoms]

Where's mine!
I've never got a trophy in my life.

Here’s your trophy,

 

[chuckroast]

Yup. Just about everything of quality has been drowned out by loud mediocrity. Fewer and fewer know the difference.

cf "The Fountainhead" by Rand. Written in the 20th Century, it is more relevant than ever today on the exact topic of how mediocrity gets promoted as excellence so everyone is "great".

 

[Vaughn]

I never bought into the participation trophy issue. Buzz words.

But we sure like to get grumpy about how the world is going. Good to get it our of the system occasionally. Rant on!! Kids learn at school, but mostly they learn by example. So if our kids are changing the world in ways we don't like, too bad since we are the ones who taught them...they been watching!

Or we can blame it all on our parents and the greatest generation and the example they set.

 

[Craig]

I've posted a few photos and some comments completely missed the subject matter, so to me comments don't really mean much.

If someone looks at a photos, get a bit of enjoyment from it yet says nothing, I'm happy.

 

[Vaughn]

I've posted a few photos and some comments completely missed the subject matter, so to me comments don't really mean much.

If someone looks at a photos, get a bit of enjoyment from it yet says nothing, I'm happy.

Agreed. Besides time and effort, it takes some experience, education (self and/or formal), and thought to pull the most out of someone's print. For me that means that a print (or collection of prints) can have layers...a story line, a visual balance, a love of light, visual movement, a message, symbolism, and so forth, all working together. Most people do not wish to spend the time and effort needed to dig deeper or do not have the tools to make digging enjoyable.

One of my goals is to have a framed print of the wall that will work for all levels of viewers...those who like looking at pretty pictures to those who study the piece. Sometimes it is as simple as having a small detail in the image to reward those who spend the time looking at the work. Perhaps I can sucker someone into spending more time looking and spinning their mental and/or emotional wheels.

 

[Pieter12]

Agreed. Besides time and effort, it takes some experience, education (self and/or formal), and thought to pull the most out of someone's print. For me that means that a print (or collection of prints) can have layers...a story line, a visual balance, a love of light, visual movement, a message, symbolism, and so forth, all working together. Most people do not wish to spend the time and effort needed to dig deeper or do not have the tools to make digging enjoyable.

One of my goals is to have a framed print of the wall that will work for all levels of viewers...those who like looking at pretty pictures to those who study the piece. Sometimes it is as simple as having a small detail in the image to reward those who spend the time looking at the work. Perhaps I can sucker someone into spending more time looking and spinning the mental and/or emotional wheels.

That is all well and nice. However, my original rant was about folks who seem to have no clue as to how mediocre or even poor the images are that they post, with a possible limited interest to only their immediate circle of friends and family. Or just in bad taste in some instances.

 

[Craig]

That is all well and nice. However, my original rant was about folks who seem to have no clue as to how mediocre or even poor the images are that they post,

Who's to define what's mediocre? What if it's the first roll of film someone has ever exposed and they are happy to get anything out of it? It has value to them, no matter how commonplace the subject matter is.

People take photos for many reasons, it's not for others to judge why. One persons masterpiece is another persons crap, and much of that is a value judgement unique to the viewer alone.

 

[chuckroast]

That is all well and nice. However, my original rant was about folks who seem to have no clue as to how mediocre or even poor the images are that they post, with a possible limited interest to only their immediate circle of friends and family. Or just in bad taste in some instances.

Such people may feel exactly the same about so-called "high art" or abstract photographs. Everyone has their own idea of what they find satisfying in this context.

And, as Robert Heinlein so trenchantly observed, Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig. It's not always self evident who is the pig and who is the teacher ...

 

[Pieter12]

Who's to define what's mediocre? What if it's the first roll of film someone has ever exposed and they are happy to get anything out of it? It has value to them, no matter how commonplace the subject matter is.

People take photos for many reasons, it's not for others to judge why. One persons masterpiece is another persons crap, and much of that is a value judgement unique to the viewer alone.

I have no problem with that. No one is expecting masterpieces. But maybe a bit of self-refletction and critical judgment before posting for the public. As I mentioned in the first post, most of this I see on other photo forums where the participants are not beginners, they are using quite expensive and sophisticated cameras, many involving a fair amount of technical ability. That, unfortunately is not enough. One can produce crap at any level, just maybe don't put it online.

 

[Pieter12]

Such people may feel exactly the same about so-called "high art" or abstract photographs. Everyone has their own idea of what they find satisfying in this context.

And, as Robert Heinlein so trenchantly observed, Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig. It's not always self evident who is the pig and who is the teacher ...

Examples, examples, examples, please.

 

[chuckroast]

I have no problem with that. No one is expecting masterpieces. But maybe a bit of self-refletction and critical judgment before posting for the public. As I mentioned in the first post, most of this I see on other photo forums where the participants are not beginners, they are using quite expensive and sophisticated cameras, many involving a fair amount of technical ability. That, unfortunately is not enough. One can produce crap at any level, just maybe don't put it online.

But so much of "that's no good" is entirely a matter of personal worldview and sensibility.

I just declined to renew my subscription to LFI after only 1 year because I found most of what they posted to be irritatingly political or completely banal, not to mention often technically deficient. It felt like they are riding Cartier-Bresson and Brassai's reputations and doing very little worthwhile of the brand or its history.

But that me and a good many other people see it differently. It's no emulsion off my nose, so I just don't care, and don't pay for it ....

 

[chuckroast]

Examples, examples, examples, please.

I shoot a lot of abstracts. The photographers and artists of my direct acquaintance seem to enjoy at least some of them. Non-photographers divide about evenly on whether or not they'll even spend time with the image. Since I work for myself, and only myself, I just don't care, certainly enough to try and "correct" the "wrong" opinion ...

 

[Pieter12]

I shoot a lot of abstracts. The photographers and artists of my direct acquaintance seem to enjoy at least some of them. Non-photographers divide about evenly on whether or not they'll even spend time with the image. Since I work for myself, and only myself, I just don't care, certainly enough to try and "correct" the "wrong" opinion ...

But you're not posting for public consumption and that is up to you. I don't understand why there are some who seem their images fit to post when they are banal or even bad, or in poor taste (without poor taste being intentionally the objective). I go back to "everyone gets a trophy"--no one would dare to judge my work, just the fact that I have produced something is worthy of reward, respect and praise. If it pleases the maker, wonderful! But maybe a closer, more critical look before sharing.

 

[chuckroast]

But you're not posting for public consumption and that is up to you. I don't understand why there are some who seem their images fit to post when they are banal or even bad, or in poor taste (without poor taste being intentionally the objective). I go back to "everyone gets a trophy"--no one would dare to judge my work, just the fact that I have produced something is worthy of reward, respect and praise. If it pleases the maker, wonderful! But maybe a closer, more critical look before sharing.

I do post publicly here and elsewhere to get feedback from other capable photographers. I just don't expect to have to make everyone happy.

 

[Pieter12]

I do post publicly here and elsewhere to get feedback from other capable photographers. I just don't expect to have to make everyone happy.

No one is expecting to make everyone or even anyone happy. What I don't fathom is why the poster is pleased with the work enough to share it. Let's cut to the chase--some work is pitiful (and I don't mean technically deficient) or unintentionally cliché/kitschy and would be best kept to oneself.

 

[chuckroast]

No one is expecting to make everyone or even anyone happy. What I don't fathom is why the poster is pleased with the work enough to share it. Let's cut to the chase--some work is pitiful (and I don't mean technically deficient) or unintentionally cliché/kitschy and would be best kept to oneself.

Who gets to decide what's "good enough" to post? The whole point of fora like Photrio et al is to have an open exchange of ideas and images. That marketplace makes us all better even if you don't like every single thing you see.

You also have to consider that there is a very wide range of experience represented in places like this. I have been seriously photographing for 50-ish years on- and off. What I thought was "good" five decades ago, makes me wince today. But if we insist on some magical threshold that must be met in order to post, we will exclude people early on in their photographic journey. They don't need muting, they need encouragement ...

 

[Pieter12]

Who gets to decide what's "good enough" to post? The whole point of fora like Photrio et al is to have an open exchange of ideas and images. That marketplace makes us all better even if you don't like every single thing you see.

You also have to consider that there is a very wide range of experience represented in places like this. I have been seriously photographing for 50-ish years on- and off. What I thought was "good" five decades ago, makes me wince today. But if we insist on some magical threshold that must be met in order to post, we will exclude people early on in their photographic journey. They don't need muting, they need encouragement ...

People can post whatever they want, just trying to understand the why.

 

[chuckroast]

People can post whatever they want, just trying to understand the why.

There are likely many reasons:

• They may find the image personally meaningful
• They may be seeking input on how to improve
• They may be complete beginners proud of the fact that they successfully processed film/paper for the first time
• They may be doing experiments to see how changing things changes outcomes
• And so on...

A little grace, humility, and encouragement goes far.

 

[BrianShaw]

That is all well and nice. However, my original rant was about folks who seem to have no clue as to how mediocre or even poor the images are that they post, with a possible limited interest to only their immediate circle of friends and family. Or just in bad taste in some instances.

Interesting. I completely misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Don_ih]

People can post whatever they want, just trying to understand the why.

The "why" will be variable. Generally, if you see what else that person posted, you might get some idea. Or you could ask. Most photos are unexceptional. Of the exceptional ones, very few are significant or meaningful. But if we limited our viewing to the best of the best, we'd have very little viewing to do. It'd be like only wanting your favourite songs on the radio - played once a day, the rest of the day empty silence.

Anyway, so many people would probably like the things you hate.

 

[Milpool]

The complaint seems to be about crap pictures made with expensive equipment versus just plain crap pictures. Anyway, I don't think constructive feedback really helps much. Maybe a little, but in the end few people who do art, music etc. are very good at it. They either realize that and enjoy it anyway, or they don't realize it, or other combinations of those.

 

[chuckroast]

The complaint seems to be about crap pictures made with expensive equipment versus just plain crap pictures. Anyway, I don't think constructive feedback really helps much. Maybe a little, but in the end few people who do art, music etc. are very good at it. They either realize that and enjoy it anyway, or they don't realize it, or other combinations of those.

But I think the premise is questionable. Equipment can make work easier- or harder, but how expensive it is, is uncorrelated to whether you get good results or not. Cameras don't make pictures, photographers do.

 

[Craig]

Let's cut to the chase--some work is pitiful (and I don't mean technically deficient) or unintentionally cliché/kitschy and would be best kept to oneself.

In your opinion. Obviously others disagree.

Besides, there is nothing objective to measure what is "pitiful" or or not - that is in the eye of the beholder. You already mentioned that the work isn't technically deficient, such as poor exposure or out of focus, so the only thing left is a subjective opinion.

 

[Milpool]

I agree with you, but reading the original post it seems like in particular bad pictures made with fancy equipment are sort of the triggers.

But I think the premise is questionable. Equipment can make work easier- or harder, but how expensive it is, is uncorrelated to whether you get good results or not. Cameras don't make pictures, photographers do.

 

[Vaughn]

People might post what seems crap because it is not crap to them. Seems simple enough.