- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
sometimes it SEEMS the practitioner is out of control but s/he is every bit in control
There is something that I am not much fond of. That is people who work out of control, not knowing what they are going to get, and then claim the results as their art. But that is just me I guess.
sometimes it SEEMS the practitioner is out of control but s/he is every bit in control
There is something that I am not much fond of. That is people who work out of control, not knowing what they are going to get, and then claim the results as their art. But that is just me I guess.
Mediocrity is to me unacceptable. No matter your present place on the learning curve and evolution as a photographer you should be trying for excellence. As good as you can be. You may still suck or you may be great but in both cases you should be "trying" to get better.
blansky:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are really saying that accepting mediocrity is wrong, when better results are within your reach. With that I will agree.
What I was trying to say in my earlier posts is that there can be real quality in mid-range work, and that the appreciation and pursuit of quality matters.
What I object to is people rejecting high quality work as being somehow not worthy, because there are examples available from others that are more exceptional.
Strive for the very best, but don't reject that which is merely valuable.
How hard a person strives when they fail tells us far, far more about that person than how easily they achieved yet another success, real or imagined.
I understand not allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good. I understand the wisdom and definition of the sweet spot.* Recognition of the appropriateness of these characteristics is part of the overall definition of excellence.
But as I said before, for me it's not about an individual's final end results one way or the other. It's about their determination and desire and effort and perseverance in both their successes and their failures. Because we all have different potentials, those qualities are the true measure of an individual's success.
It's the mindset that's the metric, not the stuff that results.
Ken
* One step before reaching the point of diminishing returns, thus the best possible outcome with no wasted effort or resources.
So who IS that Australian guy wearing #8 in the yellow jersey? And where did he get that determination and desire and effort and perseverance?
Talent-wise he was definitely born a couple of notches on the curve below most of the other players on the court. But not a single other player out there has come anywhere close to matching him in percentage of god-given bell curve potential realized.
He's easily the biggest success story of the NBA Finals series thus far...
Ken
Sorry. Missing the point. And don't follow basketball.
You play hockey, so I know you understand and can appreciate this sports-related example of the universally applicable drive for excellence...
"Which leads us to Matthew Dellavedova [#8]. I mean, I dont even know anymore. Nothing makes any sense. I remember vividly the first time I got to know Dellavedova, when he was a wild-haired maniac on a Saint Marys team that made a run in the NCAA Tournament. My friend and I thought he looked like The Feral Kid from Mad Max 2 and he cracked us up constantly.
The fact that the Feral Kid is now dropping 20 points in Game 3 of the NBA Finals is something I cant even begin to comprehend. It doesnt make any sense. He got the Cavaliers at least four extra possessions last night out of pure hustle. He was taken to the hospital after the game with severe cramping, taking an ambulance there. He was hospitalized last night from effort."
Nate Scott, For The Win, USA Today Sports, June 10, 2015
(Emphasis is mine, by way of admiration.)
Ken
...He got the Cavaliers at least four extra possessions last night out of pure hustle. He was taken to the hospital after the game with severe cramping, taking an ambulance there. He was hospitalized last night from effort."[/I][/INDENT]
Nate Scott, For The Win, USA Today Sports, June 10, 2015
Full disclosure: I'm not a hockey fan, nor a basketball fan. I just liked the comment this guy made because it was negative and because he wasn't overly impressed.
I heard about this dehydration incident on the radio this morning. The Sports Illustrated commentator suggested it should be filed under "boo hoo", claiming while this might be an impressive level of exertion within a basketball context, it doesn't hold a candle to the energy/effort expended by a hockey player, for example.
Full disclosure: I'm not a hockey fan, nor a basketball fan.
I know that. The commentator was trying to make the point the player cramped from a lower level of exertion than that required in an average performance in another sport. This suggests a simple shortfall in the player's fitness level, rather than a superhuman energy expenditure. It was a commentary on reference points when we fawn.
It was a commentary on reference points when we fawn.
Although it may be back in the ether of this thread somewhere, describe what you mean by mid-range work and high quality work.
In the photography world, you have probably seen portrait work that is both good - interesting to the onlooker, pleasing to the client, technically proficient, usable in multiple situations (the wallet print and the 11x14 on the wall and illustrating the annual report) - and consistently good, in that the same photographer has been able to supply that quality reliably, to many clients, over many years. It is just that the work only stands out because of its consistency. I would consider that mid-range work.
You have probably seen other portrait work that is similarly consistent, but exceptional as well - innovative to the point of breathtaking, remarkably insightful and fascinating to the onlooker. I would consider that high quality work.
Some might consider both examples as high quality work. Others would be unwilling to give the first example any consideration at all.
I refuse to dismiss as unworthy any work that fails to reach the highest level of excellence. Except in the relatively rare circumstance where I am seeking out only that highest level of excellence.
.
I refuse to dismiss as unworthy any work that fails to reach the highest level of excellence. Except in the relatively rare circumstance where I am seeking out only that highest level of excellence.
Fair enough and points taken. I suppose my issue is I've really never been one to marvel at the reach for excellence unless the person in question is at the absolute top of the field. I can't help it. Those are my reference points.
Fair enough and points taken. I suppose my issue is I've really never been one to marvel at the reach for excellence unless the person in question is at the absolute top of the field. I can't help it. Those are my reference points.
...These all have to come together into a cohesive unit. And you can't win without the lesser guys. So they too are at the top of their field, it's just that they don't score many of the goals. But the superstars know who they are and their importance to the team. In fact that's the beauty of a team sport. All these different guys, styles and talents molded together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Harrold_Carswell
In defense against charges that Carswell was "mediocre", U.S. Senator Roman Hruska, a Nebraska Republican, stated:
"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."[5][6]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?