Knowing enough

[snerd]

So now we're suppose to go back and re-read Buckster's posts and post #13?

o.k. Be back in a bit.

Dude, you give my view way too much importance. I'm simian.

 

[Designer]

Dude! Wait. What?

Being able to appreciate art or music, or whatever usually requires some point of reference.

For instance:

"I like this photograph because it's better than others I have seen."

( so how would someone know that unless he had seen other photographs?)

 

[robbins.photo]

So now we're suppose to go back and re-read Buckster's posts and post #13?

o.k. Be back in a bit.

Could you give me a brief synapses? The readers digest version?

It's sort of an interesting discussion, I guess my own thoughts go to movie critics. Take a guy like Roger Ebert - he's got a wealth of knowledge about the film industry, movies, etc. He's been a professional reviewer for.. well, as long as I can remember.

When Ebert goes to a movie and truly enjoys it and gives it a very high rating, odds are good when I watch the movie I'll fall asleep within the first 10 minutes if I'm lucky. The stuff he loves, well frankly I usually think it sucks. Almost no entertainment value to it whatsoever.

So, who's "right" and who's "wrong" between Roger and I? He's got tons of training and experience and views movies a certain way. He's a professional movie critic.

Me, I'm the schmo who buys the ticket - IE, the person the movie is supposed to appeal too in the first place. No, I'm not a professional and I don't view movies the same way Roger does, but it's my money that ultimately funds these endeavors. I'm the one they are trying to get to come to the theater and watch the movie.

Sort of interesting, when you stop and think about it.

 

[robbins.photo]

So now we're suppose to go back and re-read Buckster's posts and post #13?

o.k. Be back in a bit.

Dude, you give my view way too much importance. I'm simian.

But you take a heck of a selfie. Don't sell yourself short.. lol

 

[Designer]

I could review movies too, but for my general distaste for them. I basically stopped paying for movies over 30 years ago. Roger Ebert continues to watch, but if he doesn't like them at least he is being paid for it.

 

[Designer]

You guys and your simian talk.

 

[photoguy99]

Roger's dead, folks.

 

[snerd]

You guys and your simian talk.

Smile when you say that, pardner!

 

[runnah]

What do my photos, if any, have to do with it? Or with anything else?

Because posting photos lends credibility to what you say. I listen to and respect those folks on here who post quality work. For all I know you could be full of hot air and just parroting what others say.

 

[bribrius]

So now we're suppose to go back and re-read Buckster's posts and post #13?

o.k. Be back in a bit.

Could you give me a brief synapses? The readers digest version?

It's sort of an interesting discussion, I guess my own thoughts go to movie critics. Take a guy like Roger Ebert - he's got a wealth of knowledge about the film industry, movies, etc. He's been a professional reviewer for.. well, as long as I can remember.

When Ebert goes to a movie and truly enjoys it and gives it a very high rating, odds are good when I watch the movie I'll fall asleep within the first 10 minutes if I'm lucky. The stuff he loves, well frankly I usually think it sucks. Almost no entertainment value to it whatsoever.

So, who's "right" and who's "wrong" between Roger and I? He's got tons of training and experience and views movies a certain way. He's a professional movie critic.

Me, I'm the schmo who buys the ticket - IE, the person the movie is supposed to appeal too in the first place. No, I'm not a professional and I don't view movies the same way Roger does, but it's my money that ultimately funds these endeavors. I'm the one they are trying to get to come to the theater and watch the movie.

Sort of interesting, when you stop and think about it.

Roger is right. you are wrong. they want your money though. so they make lots of b fliks and pure entertainment fliks. Eventually almost all the movies that come out get degraded to a pure entertainment level. when the arts were left in the higher echelon of society it wasnt such a problem. I am all for every day people having art (i am one afterall). But when it comes to controlling and critiquing art (critique can easily be control) it poses a serious problem.

To play it out. you go online and rate the movie you see, you think it is fun, entertaining, exciting and you give it four popcorn boxes. In fact not only do you do that, but ten million others do to. Now eberts movie as he watched something else, he draws up a long crtique from acting to , originality, irony in film, maybe some parts done in the tradition of previous notable films, story line etc etc etc. on how brilliant this film is. you or someone decides it sucks in the first five minutes, not entertaing fun or whatever. you rate that one no boxes or stars. You and ten million more of the general populace. And there is you or me even, and ten million others spending money, rating our fun film with four popcorn boxes. who is right? well ebert is more than likely. His opinion is informed. Our opinion is shortsighted and not informed. so eventually, why would the movie houses even want to make a brilliant or great film when they can just make a fun entertaining one and be more profitable? It effects, in the end, the art.

Over time, a new standard is set in the movie industry or whatever industry. in what they support, promote, show, what artists, all based on you buying that ticket uninformed. Ten years goes by, you pick up a book on theatre one day, start flipping through it with mild interest. Then you watch that movie ebert raved about you gave no stars one night on late night cable. suddenly , you understand why he said it was brilliant. "wow, that was pure genius" you think to yourself. Ebert was right. But alas! They stopped making movies like that now. too late. two cents.

 

[Buckster]

And when the expert sitting in the seat next to Roger on the show disagrees and politely informs us that Roger is full of it and the film has no worthwhile merit at all, what's the takeaway?

Edit: 12 hours later, no answer, which pretty much sums up my point.

 

[photoguy99]

What do my photos, if any, have to do with it? Or with anything else?

Because posting photos lends credibility to what you say. I listen to and respect those folks on here who post quality work. For all I know you could be full of hot air and just parroting what others say.

Well you'd have to find at least one person who agrees with me on a single damn thing to prove the parrot theory.

 

[runnah]

What do my photos, if any, have to do with it? Or with anything else?

Because posting photos lends credibility to what you say. I listen to and respect those folks on here who post quality work. For all I know you could be full of hot air and just parroting what others say.

Well you'd have to find at least one person who agrees with me on a single damn thing to prove the parrot theory.

Well the simple way to shut the nay-sayers up is to post work.

 

[The_Traveler]

What do my photos, if any, have to do with it? Or with anything else?

Somewhere previously you say both that you don't do critique because 95% of the pictures don't have a concept and that would be your response and that you don't post pictures because you don't need any critique yourself.

Since technical critique speaks for itself, it isn't important that you post pictures to make sense but you chose only to participate by random, pretty much content free comments when you do participate.

Obviously this is the Internet and you can participate or not as you like but the impression you give is that you think you are too good to do any of the heavy lifting by helping people who need help.

I post for two reasons - an occasional reality check on my own impressions of my work and, more importantly, as social dues to the community.

So your presence here engenders some hostility in some people who actually do work or put themselves out for the community. My guess is that you have done this a lot because you are fairly skilled at deflecting questions.

There is the kind of person I think of as 'the drive-by @$$h0le', someone who drives by a scene and yells something cutting out the window. The actual contribution is nothing and the yelling is only to attract attention to themselves.
While that may give the shouter some glow of self-satisfaction, everyone actually working is happy when they're gone.

 

[photoguy99]

I'm flattered, but this thread's not about me. I'm frankly offended that you think my comments are content free, though.