What has become of us all?

[chuckroast]

I would distinguish the narcissistic nature of a selfie from a self portrait. Every photograph is a self portrait.

Narcissism is the new black - it goes with everything.

 

[koraks]

I didn't claim my views were superior only that they are my views.

Of course, of course, sure.

You read what I wrote, it's there for a reason; see if the shoe fits. If so, try it on sometime.

 

[chuckroast]

Of course, of course, sure.

You read what I wrote, it's there for a reason; see if the shoe fits. If so, try it on sometime.

Oh dear. I failed to have the "correct" opinion so you decided to engage in verbal warfare to make it seem like I think my views are "superior". I do not. I think they are self evident. Could it be that perhaps you feel yours are inferior?

I stand by what I wrote without apology. Popularity is not a measure of artistic value and a great deal of what is spewed forth from the modern arts academy and arts business is dreck. One absolutely does not need a "superior" view to see this. One need only a reasonably average understanding of beauty and artistic merit.

As just one example (of many). The Beatles were wildly successful. Their output is loved by millions. But their compositions are musically trivial (with the exception of a few Harrison tunes) the lyrics vary between silly to banal. OK that's my option. But guess what? They're already elevator music. Even in the lifetime of the members of this group, they're losing influence and importance in the arts. The most important measure of the goodness of art isn't popularity, it's durability and their work is already fading. Rinse repeat for most of the so-called "great" modern artists in any medium who have a shorter and shorter relevance half life.

I have to go make my superior contact sheets now so I can lord them over everyone ...

 

[koraks]

Like a glove.

 

[Don_ih]

I have no problem acknowledging my views are superior.

The influence of The Beatles will be felt on popular music long after people stop listening directly to them. Influence feeds into what others do.

Popularity does not measure merit. But it also does not invalidate it. Are you going to admire something until the swarming masses decide it's good? Will you then discard it? It appeals to the plebs, it must be pap!

 

[chuckroast]

I have no problem acknowledging my views are superior.

The influence of The Beatles will be felt on popular music long after people stop listening directly to them. Influence feeds into what others do.

Popularity does not measure merit. But it also does not invalidate it. Are you going to admire something until the swarming masses decide it's good? Will you then discard it? It appeals to the plebs, it must be pap!

At best, and I mean the very best, popularity is only a very indirect measure of merit. It's certainly a measure of influence as you note, but that doesn't make it good.

Once of the real sinkholes of public fora like this is people presuming the motives and intent of complete strangers, mostly because because someone hurt their tender feels or skewered one of their sacred cows. A conversation about ideas gets turned into one about the individuals discussing it. I think it was Eleanor Roosevelt that said ""Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people". I prefer ideas.

 

[Vaughn]

I would distinguish the narcissistic nature of a selfie from a self portrait. Every photograph is a self portrait.

I wouldn’t. I do not wish to create that distinction between the two. Selfies are self portraits. They are not formal self portraits. They are not introspective self portraits. But self portraits nevertheless.

They are just the snapshots of self-portrait photography. I find the group-selfie to a class of its own!

 

[Don_ih]

At best, and I mean the very best, popularity is only a very indirect measure of merit.

I don't even think that. Popularity can be a measure of success - particularly for commercial success. But it really doesn't mean something is good. It doesn't mean something is bad. It just means people like it. And lots of things that people like are actually good, in whatever the most objective sense you can come up with. But it's correlation, not causation.

 

[Pieter12]

Does every discussion eventually degrade to "what is art?"

 

[CMoore]

Does every discussion eventually degrade to "what is art?"

Sense you ask................ I would say No.
Only when the topic is "Art"

 

[Pieter12]

Sense you ask................ I would say No.
Only when the topic is "Art"

The topic wasn't "art." So I guess the answer is yes, quite often.

 

[CMoore]

The topic wasn't "art." So I guess the answer is yes, quite often.

I will not even respond to an Artsy-Fartsy comment like this

 

[Pieter12]

Are

I will not even respond to an Artsy-Fartsy comment like this

Aren’t we touchy.

 

[chuckroast]

Are


Aren’t we touchy.

And feely too ...

 

[Milpool]

Does every discussion eventually degrade to "what is art?"

Pretty much, especially in a philosophy subforum.

 

[CMoore]

I will not even respond to an Artsy-Fartsy comment like this

Are


Aren’t we touchy.

My Apologies............. should i have included a sarcasm face with that

 

[DsrtBill]

At least in the day of Instamatics, you were limited by the number of exposures on a roll and how much film you would carry. Today, There is no limit plus there's video. But the silliest thing I think I have seen on vacation was a tour group wearing VR headsets instead of looking at the real thing they were in front of.

View attachment 420274

This may be the most dystopian image I've seen. Reminds me of Simon Stalenhag's work. https://www.simonstalenhag.se/es.html

History is written by the victors.

I've always found an issue with this quote. It's less so that history is written by the victors, but it is preserved by those who can read and write and have the foresight to archive and protect their writing. But that is neither here nor there.

As for the New Yorker video, it reminded me of a recent experience at Horseshoe Bend. People were literally walking over signs that read roughly 'do not leave the trails' in order to get a 'better' photograph. It felt like it was easier to view the bend from the rails than elsewhere along the cliff. Not to mention the garbage left behind.


- Bill

 

[koraks]

It's less so that history is written by the victors, but it is preserved by those who can read and write and have the foresight to archive and protect their writing.

Sure - bite you're overlooking a couple of things. One is that those who technically can write are not always at liberty to do so. And the choice of preservation is often in the hands of those who had little to do with the writing in tje first place. It takes a lot of self-restraint for a society to tell a balanced story. I don't think such a society has truly ever existed.

 

[DsrtBill]

Sure - bite you're overlooking a couple of things. One is that those who technically can write are not always at liberty to do so. And the choice of preservation is often in the hands of those who had little to do with the writing in tje first place. It takes a lot of self-restraint for a society to tell a balanced story. I don't think such a society has truly ever existed.

There are many factors I've overlooked for the sake of brevity, for this is a photography forum and not a history one. With that said, some groups of people very well might have left behind written evidence, but that evidence has yet to be translated; see the Buyla inscription as an example. And as support to preservation being in the hands of the generations after, the famous tale of Akhenaten, "The Pharaoh Erased From History". For an example of a book written by the 'losers' (again an oversimplification), De origine et situ Germanorum, a book written by a Roman, Tacitus, about a people they (the Romans) hated (the Germans).

As to telling a balanced story, such a thing is pure fiction in my opinion. Every historian, ancient to modern, is writing through some sort of lens. One historian may be closer to the objective truth of the matter, but there will always be topics ignored and overlooked. While historical/anthropological relativism is taught in the present moment, no saying whether it will be in the future, and certainly was not always the case in the past.

It's not that I disagree with you, nor that I think what you are saying is incorrect; it's just a personal gripe with adages, in particular "History is written by the Victor" and "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it". They're oversimplifications that cause root issues in studying and understanding the world around us. Much like "History is His-Story", they are poor oversimplifications that remove nuance and create a false idea within people's minds who care not to study history. Not saying everyone has to devote their lives to studying history.

.- Bill

 

[Don_ih]

"History is written by the Victor" and "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it". They're oversimplifications

They're "truisms", thusly named because they are, in the main, correct. Dead people don't write history. And if you don't understand what consequences followed from certain courses of action (as exemplified by the past), you will probably stupidly fall into them.

Truisms are vacuous. No one believes they mean anything that significant. There's no real reason to object to them.

History written by the "losers" or "survivors" would be considered alternate accounts. Generally, people focus on what matters to them. For the victors, whatever they did was "good" and whatever the losers did was "bad". Should anyone expect an account from the other side would be painted the same colours? I doubt anyone is naive enough for that.

Anyway....

 

[chuckroast]

There are many factors I've overlooked for the sake of brevity, for this is a photography forum and not a history one. With that said, some groups of people very well might have left behind written evidence, but that evidence has yet to be translated; see the Buyla inscription as an example. And as support to preservation being in the hands of the generations after, the famous tale of Akhenaten, "The Pharaoh Erased From History". For an example of a book written by the 'losers' (again an oversimplification), De origine et situ Germanorum, a book written by a Roman, Tacitus, about a people they (the Romans) hated (the Germans).

As to telling a balanced story, such a thing is pure fiction in my opinion. Every historian, ancient to modern, is writing through some sort of lens. One historian may be closer to the objective truth of the matter, but there will always be topics ignored and overlooked. While historical/anthropological relativism is taught in the present moment, no saying whether it will be in the future, and certainly was not always the case in the past.

It's not that I disagree with you, nor that I think what you are saying is incorrect; it's just a personal gripe with adages, in particular "History is written by the Victor" and "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it". They're oversimplifications that cause root issues in studying and understanding the world around us. Much like "History is His-Story", they are poor oversimplifications that remove nuance and create a false idea within people's minds who care not to study history. Not saying everyone has to devote their lives to studying history.

.- Bill

These aphorisms are often used when someone wants to try and reinvent reasonably well established history, usually in service of some non-historical agenda. Just because history as recorded has a cant and is necessarily incomplete, doesn't make it wrong.

The same thing exists in abundance in modern art criticism when so-called critics flog their own socio-economic-political agenda by injecting modern pieties on ancient works. There's nothing like having someone deeply infected with postmodern or deconstructionism, lecture the world that Botticelli was really making a feminist statement or something equally ridiculous.

History is incomplete and filtered through the historian, but that doesn't rob it of meaning.

 

[chuckroast]

They're "truisms", thusly named because they are, in the main, correct. Dead people don't write history. And if you don't understand what consequences followed from certain courses of action (as exemplified by the past), you will probably stupidly fall into them.

Truisms are vacuous. No one believes they mean anything that significant. There's no real reason to object to them.

History written by the "losers" or "survivors" would be considered alternate accounts. Generally, people focus on what matters to them. For the victors, whatever they did was "good" and whatever the losers did was "bad". Should anyone expect an account from the other side would be painted the same colours? I doubt anyone is naive enough for that.

Anyway....

We have ample examples of histories where multiple sides of the same events are told. For example there is the Jewish Josephus documenting early Christianity. Both the French and the English told their sides of the American Revolution, not just the US Framers. Catholics and Protestants both had a lot to say about the 30 Years war.

Most of the major themes of Western history (I know almost nothing about Asian/Eastern/South Asian history) have ample multiple sources if you dig hard enough. Some of this, at least, used to be taught in the academy before it became and ideological dunk tank.

(It's funny, my undergraduate work was in a stoutly adherent religious tradition. They did a far, far better job of exposing us to ideas and points-of-view that they absolutely disagreed with than the far more "liberal arts" grad school I went to. )