if 90 percent of people don't like what you shoot or the way you shoot

The only thing it means when 90% of the people don't like what you're doing is that you might want to go back and re-evaluate it. There's a reason they don't like your work; you need to figure out what that reason is. If you decide that it's something reasonable than treat this as a learning opportunity. Just keep in mind that just because "everybody" believes something doesn't make it true.
 
So long as you are in the persuit of truth, you're never doing anything wrong.
But what really is the truth ?
Art should pursue perfection. But what is perfection ?
Art should talk to the soul of the viewer. ...? In this light maybe that's the reality: "art is for everybody, just not for everyone."
Van Gogh was disliked by 90% (or 91%) in his own time, Now is questioned only by few. What changed ? Our indoctrination.
 
timor said:
Van Gogh was disliked by 90% (or 91%) in his own time, Now is questioned only by few. What changed ? Our indoctrination.

What changed? Time! TIME is what changed!

In the world of decorator art, kitsch is king. The familiar is king. What is safe, and sweet, and sentimental is king. In Van Gogh's time, what came to be known as the Impressionist movement was rejected by the salon establishment that determined what paintings would be accepted for display. In the tradition of representational, idealized painting that had been the standard since the renaissance era, "fine art" was mostly all about the classical way of showing things...staid, well-studied, representational paintings, with fine lines, careful brush strokes, and a sameness that had been codified over about three hundred years' time.

The bold, emotional, "messy" brush strokes, the lack of careful ,measured, traditional painting that Van Gogh, and other painters were working in went against the long-held ideals of what fine art painting was supposed to be. The impressionists like Manet and Monet, were reviled and ridiculed in their own era. And yet now, a little over one hundred years after they lived, the same impressionist paintings are popular as wall art; what was once considered radical, and outrageous, now decorates the sewing rooms of grandmotherly women and is sold as being soothing, pleasing, non-offending decorator art. The time of Van Gogh was a time of great transformation in fine art painting. Hundreds of years' worth of top-down control was about to come crashing down.

What fine art "is", and what it was "supposed to be" had stood quite static and unchanged from the renaissance until the last part of the 1800's, when new, different, radical ways of doing fine art were developed. The salons and their stultifying influence over what fine art painting was supposed to be had kept painting pretty much in line, with the same old chit, over and over. After such a long, oppressive tradition in which everything was either representational or allegorical, and experimental art was squashed, it's little wonder that the late 19th and early 20th century spawned multiple types of all-new ways to do art, in record time.

It is true...in his own time, Van Gogh's work was NOT popular, because he did not paint in a style that resembled the work that had been done since the renaissance. His work was not all about showing fine details, and elevating noble men and women by gloriously painting them in beautiful ways. His subjects were worldly, and not "classical". People wanted old-fashioned painting, and Van Gogh gave them something verrrrrry different than "what they were familiar with". He was equivalent to The Beatles in his field; despised by the old-school people, who called them long-hairs, The Beatles were the icon of a revolution in music.

The basic premise for popularity in artworks is this: Most people don't know anything about "art", but they like what they know. Most people like ONLY that which they are very familiar with. And what most people know is safe, popular, and accepted by the masses who like safe, culturally-approved art. Van Gogh violated the basic premises of being popular and of being widely accepted: he did not paint the right subject matter, and he did not apply the paint to the canvas in the "right" ways.
 
Last edited:
What changed? Time! TIME is what changed!
:1247: Time is always changing. What's important is what changed in time. And the big change was event of photography. Can you believe it ? Until Daguerre art was essentially a record of us, photography took over that function, art drifted into being food for our souls, record of our feelings rather than life. Thus photography stands in very precarious place, fulfilling dual role of sharp, focused record and suggestion.
 
Some reasons why people follow the popular trends:

1. Its easier. Turning on the top 10 pop list is easier than scouring the internet to find a group.
2. Fitting in. Lots of people are concerned with being "normal" and fitting in. Sure you could listen to death metal from far off meatball oriented country but then what would you talk about at the water cooler?
3. Just don't care. To some people, food is food, music is music. Olive garden is classic Italian and Katy Perry is musical genius.

p.s. I like death metal and Katy Peryy, but hate Olive garden.
 
I like Katy Perry, but only for the t**s...

Here's a fun exercise: if you have a Facebook account, select a sub-par sunset photo you have made. Make sure it has really pretty clouds. Crank the saturation and vibrance really,really high. Then add some clarity, like 50 points' worth of it, or until it starts to halo up like a bastid. Sharpen the crap out of it. Then, post it to Facebook. See what happens.

I am a bit embarrassed to admit that I have done this a few times.

This ties in with the often-discussed threads here on TPF, regarding just how valuable Facebook praise is to people who are serious about their photography. People who are not actively interested in photography as a craft, as an art, or as profession are often very unsophisticated and will often praise work that is very marginal in terms of qualities or attributes.

Cute cell phone snaps of puppies can gain more Facebook "likes" than serious works. Sunsets often peg the like counts.
 
Last edited:
I like Katy Perry, but only for the t**s...

How sexist, she is more than a pair of breasts...magnificent, supple, wonderful breasts...what were we talking about?
 
runnah said:
Derrel said:
I like Katy Perry, but only for the t**s...

How sexist, she is more than a pair of breasts...magnificent, supple, wonderful breasts...what were we talking about?

Yes, Katy Perry *is more* than just her chestal region....she also wears a lot of panty-flashing short skirts on-stage...Umm...yeah...and her lip sync skills are positively amazing.

Well, you know, back to the OP...I think bri tries very hard to express his own vision in his photos. I see a LOT of his pics...I totally get that he really does try to express himself with his camera, and his work is often on the edge, and does not cross over into that "popularity contest" area where people will "Ooooh!" and "Ahhh!" over his work. Bri is working on his own personal photography journey--he has written a lot about his feelings, his ideas, his rationale behind a lot of images he has posted here. He's not a great technician, but he is getting better. His work is NOT going to appeal to the crowd of people who like bright, shiny, cheerful images. He is NOT going to fit in on 500px...he's way too much a maverick to fit in with that crowd. Why would he want to?
 
I like Katy Perry, but only for the t**s...

How sexist, she is more than a pair of breasts...magnificent, supple, wonderful breasts...what were we talking about?
Didn't you noticed ? The whole "propaganda" is turning our attention to sex. Sex sells. In this function sex is fogging other aspects of life, less happy aspects.
 
runnah said:
Derrel said:
I like Katy Perry, but only for the t**s...

How sexist, she is more than a pair of breasts...magnificent, supple, wonderful breasts...what were we talking about?

Yes, Katy Perry *is more* than just her chestal region....she also wears a lot of panty-flashing short skirts on-stage...Umm...yeah...and her lip sync skills are positively amazing.

This certainly an issue of great importance thus requires more research. So if you can send me any of these photos containing shots of her bosoms and undergarments I would appreciate it. High res if possible.
 
Facebook likes is great for marketing. It creates a sense of approval and validation, not only for yourself but for possible future clients who are looking over your work. Your work appears more valuable. For some people, no amount of Facebook likes can help them. :D
 
Kim Kardashian. Justin Bieber. McDonalds. All fairly popular, all with HUGE numbers of people who just LOVE their stuff. According to one poster here, with popularity comes automatic certification of quality. More popular = better. More popular = higher artistic value. More popular= automatically higher aesthetic value.
Would LOVE to see you use actual quotes from that poster to support your claims. Can you do it, or are you making up this mythical "poster", as usual?

Seriously? Fox News has been Number One in television news for 13 years in a row now. 2014 Cable News Ratings Year-End Fox News CNN MSNBC Mediaite On a nightly basis, FOX News has nearly TRIPLE the viewership of its nearest competitor. So, apparently, we have a member here who thinks because it has the greatest popularity, FOX News is...the best! Simple, isn't it!
Again, let's see the actual quotes from this poster you claim exists.

Seriously? If you want to see what the level of popular taste among non-photographers is, look no farther than Facebook. Browse around Facebook and just look at what kind of photography people praise as being ,"great! Awesome! Amazing!" There is tons of very bad photography that garners rave reviews on Facebook.
What a surprise! Let's see if we can figure out how that can possibly be...

1. On FB, people are mostly connected to friends and family.

2. As photographers, we know that friends and family "ooh" and "ahh" over every shot we show them.
2. a. They don't know any better.
2. b. They think they'd hurt our feelings if they said they didn't actually like it.

3. It totally follows then that if you post one of your photos on FB, you'll get a lot of "Likes" and "Shares" from your friends and family.

4. As THEIR friends and family BEYOND yours see those "Likes" and "Shares", they'll do the same, and for the same reasons.
4. a. The bigger the circles of friends and families, the more apt it is to spread in that manner.

5. Since there's no "Dislike" button on FB, we only get one side of the "polling data", so while we see the 5,000 "likes", for all we know there are 500,000 unknown "disllikes". But hey, be sure to focus all your attention on that skewed and one-sided "poll" number made from "likes" to make your skewed point.

Yeah, this ain't exactly rocket science.

By the way, whether a photo is good, great or crap is subjective to each viewer, even you. Just because you'd hang something on your wall doesn't mean anyone else would, and vice-versa. That's real life, whether you like it or not.

A thing is not necessarily "bad" just because a lot of people like it, even if you don't.

So, apparently, the more people who click the "Like" icon on chit photos, the better those chit photos become. Because, you know, the more people like stuff, the BETTER it really is.
Gee... What an odd conclusion to make. I can't say I understand how you arrive at such a thing, but good luck with it.
 
1. On FB, people are mostly connected to friends and family.

2. As photographers, we know that friends and family "ooh" and "ahh" over every shot we show them.
.
The highlighted part. This was mentioned previously in the thread as well i believe. I actually think this is a myth. At least me personally, my mother (as was mentioned in the thread) and siblings for example are some of my largest critics. We didn't have that encouragement type of upbringing. More of the "suck it up and get off your azz" type of upbringing. You know, conservative strict etc. etc. More of the type of here is the bar and if you reach that it still isn't good enough try harder. I gave my mother a waterfall photo and i think she used it for a coaster for her coffee cup. My aunt told me one of my graveyard shots was too depressing looking and sucked last month. so..... probably not. Really just not the oooh and ahh kind of family.. There isn't anyone related to me that sugar coats anything. LOL.
 
The best-selling "paintings" of all time are of... Dogs Playing Poker.
Dogs Playing Poker - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dogs Playing Poker gives us a good insight into how well-educated people are about quality images and art. Based on what one member here has said, simply because these paintings have been bought in world-record numbers, the Dogs Playing Poker paintings must therefore be some of the very best paintings ever done! Proclaiming artistic worth, value, and significance based on popularity contests is a fool's errand. And we have one very dedicated errand-runner in this forum, trying over and over to make popularity a crucial criteria by which we judge artistic merit and value.

Bribrius, I would not worry if your work isn't quite up to that Dogs Playing Poker level of sophistication. Next time I'm in town, you and I need to get together and head to the local museum to take in the Dogs Playing Poker Paint By Numbers Exhibition. I've heard it's simply to die for! It has derivative works done by paint-by-numbers practitioners from all over the world! Early reviews on social media are super-good! Kim Kardashian said, "This muzeum got the best pictures I've ever seen." Kanye West Tweeted, " Poker by Numbas+So good I thought Beyonce did em all."
 
Dogs Playing Poker gives us a good insight into how well-educated people are about quality images and art. Based on what one member here has said, simply because these paintings have been bought in world-record numbers, the Dogs Playing Poker paintings must therefore be some of the very best paintings ever done!
Use ACTUAL quotes in context from that member to support your claims and accusations of that member.

Proclaiming artistic worth, value, and significance based on popularity contests is a fool's errand. And we have one very dedicated errand-runner in this forum, trying over and over to make popularity a crucial criteria by which we judge artistic merit and value.
Use ACTUAL quotes in context from that member to support your claims and accusations of that member.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top