Picture of a guy

[ambriz001]

Why are you trying to start commotion rob91? Just stop posting these images that don't even make sense.

 

[Steel26]

wow. why can't he post images like everyone else?

 

[Alex_B]

H If nothing else his pictures are interesting to look at.

don't think so ... but the thread is always interesting

 

[Arch]

my view is quite simple. As a photo on its own it doesn't work, there is no reason for it to be blurry other than by accident. So the image as purley a 'photo' does nothing for me.

There is however the possiblilty that the OP is exploring an artistic theme as in his other blurred images he posted on this forum. However, artistic themes need an explination, a reason for deliberately taking the image away from general photography and into the realms of the artworld. Even a simple title can sometimes help explain a piece of art. So by the OP refusing to say anything about this i would immediately deem the view of artistic merit null and void, meaning the only suitable place left for an image such as this is the trashcan.

Sorry to be so harsh, but as a forum moderator i have to view this in two ways, 1. he has a good reason for wanting to explore this 'vision' or 2. he is a forum troll that wants to create a flame war thread.... in which case i will lock it.

So to the OP rob, you are welcome to continue posting and joining in with the community, but please do not ask for opinions if you are not prepared to give explinations... it just creates arguement and flaming, ty.

 

[Alex_B]

2. he is a forum troll that wants to create a flame war thread.... in which case i will lock it.

OK, but currently I cannot see any flaming really ... it is just people getting a bit silly and others trying to understand the OPs intentions.

 

[Arch]

we do not allow flame wars on this forum period. There have been several flaming posts not just in this thread, but as i indicated on the OP's other threads of the same theme. Im sure some plp wouldnt lock them on this basis, but i on the other hand would, or at least give warning as i have.

 

[Alex_B]

well, we have more flaming posts hidden in some more serious discussion threads.

But let's not discuss how to measure the flaming content of a thread, or it's flame war potential, but just keep our eyes open

I agree, while everyone should be allowed to state his opinion, moderators have to step in if things get out of control and threads go amok.

 

['Daniel']

my view is quite simple. As a photo on its own it doesn't work, there is no reason for it to be blurry other than by accident. So the image as purley a 'photo' does nothing for me.

There is however the possiblilty that the OP is exploring an artistic theme as in his other blurred images he posted on this forum. However, artistic themes need an explination, a reason for deliberately taking the image away from general photography and into the realms of the artworld. Even a simple title can sometimes help explain a piece of art. So by the OP refusing to say anything about this i would immediately deem the view of artistic merit null and void, meaning the only suitable place left for an image such as this is the trashcan.

I have to say I disagree, It seems to me it's you who needs the an explanation. A photographer does not need to title or explain their work. this is the general gallery where people display work. If this was by some famous person I don't think people would think the artistic merit would be "null and void". You seem to tbe basing your argument on some concept of what you think a photograph should be. To have that in your head to apply to your own photographs and whether you like others is fair enough but to make someone else apply that is not fair.

Thoughts?

 

[LaFoto]

Everyone can at all times argue that what looks like a photographic, technical and compositional accident to some (most) is actually a piece of art to others. With the argument that a blurred photo of an unknown 21-year old actually is "art" you can quench any argument stating otherwise. For there is no discussing TASTES.

But believe me, there are pieces in the big museums that are totally priceless these days that I (personally) fail to quite see as the big art they are said to be, while (note that!) I even LIKE some of those pieces.

And probably the THOUGHT PROCESS that had preceded those works actually DOES lift those works into the realm of the true arts. Only don't I know those thought processes, UNLESS I get the chance to either read about them (statement by the artist given somewhere) or hear about them (TV interview, for example) or I even get the chance to speak to the artist himself. That may very well CHANGE my mind.

But if someone just says "Either you all get it or you are simply too stupid" (at 21 years of age, very mature personality, I assume) then it WILL provoke controversion! The attitude of the OP is what is even more cause for discussion, I think, than the (missing) quality of his photos, and that is the reason for these lengthy, in part also silly, but always quite "effective" threads (and I am sure the OP basks in all this and rubs his hands and grins).

 

[Digital Matt]

I think art and the "art world", in it's inherently wide and liberal constraints, produces some of the most close minded people. Never have I seen more bickering and insulting than in discussions of art by "artists".

 

[Alex_B]

the point to me is, everyone with mediocre photography skills can take one of his ok-shots and blur it in postprocessing (if done on a computer it takes one second or less).

So, I cannot see (a) any process here which requires some thought, and I cannot see (b) any pleasing or at least interesting result. I agree "pleasing" is very subject to taste. But for me, to take something serious, it needs at least (a) or (b).

[edit:] Forgot something ... or it has to (c) serve a particular purpose. But I cannot see the purpose here.

 

[Mohain]

Looking back on rob91's posts I would say he's exploring a theme/concept. I applaud you for trying something unconventional and sticking with it. I don't think you're there yet but I think you should stick at it and it. Eventually it should all fall into place :thumbup:

 

[Alex_B]

I think art and the "art world", in it's inherently wide and liberal constraints, produces some of the most close minded people. Never have I seen more bickering and insulting than in discussions of art by "artists".

You are right, but non-artists and non-photographers would hardly discuss anything here. They would say it is a dull and blurry picture. full stop.

Only those, who would like to see more in it, but cannot see more even if they try hard, only those people take the effort of discussing in this thread ...

 

[LaFoto]

Mohain, if that is the case, then it would have been the simplest of matters for Rob91 to say so in ONE sentence and none of these threads would even NEED to be there (nothing against good discussions, I am more referring to the "borderline" elements these threads also provoke.) Everyone would have been happy with the explanation and even been helpful! You know what these forums are like. But the attitude which accompany these photos is what riles ... must not say "people", don't know, but ... yes. Well. Me.

 

[Arch]

Corinna is exactly right... the point is is the OP's attitude towards being part of the discussion. We as a mod team are concearned about posters who simply 'light the fire' then stand back and watch the flames, without ANY explination OR attempt to answer anyones questions.

To Daniel, i think you mis-understand the point im trying to make, im not saying all photography needs a title... re-read what i wrote... im saying if he takes it from the realms of general photography into a vague art form then CO-OPERATION in answering plps questions is the courteous thing to do, rather than letting plp argue needlessly. That is my main concern, its weather he is in fact a forum troll and doesnt take his postings seriously, not whether my opinion of it being classed as art or not.