The Re-Inventon of a Dead Horse

[pgriz]

What? Why? Where? When? Who?

These are relevant questions. The "How?" is usually less relevant. But not totally irrelevant, as the phrase "The ends justify the means." warns us. For to ignore the "how" is to take at face value whatever image we are looking at. And while this may be fine in an artistic way, it also hides the reason of creation of the image from us. This becomes a problem in propaganda, whether political, commercial, ideological, religious, or sectarian. So while we should not be slaves at the altar of technical excellence, we should be aware of how images can be manipulated.

My mother, who survived a dictatorship, and then WWII as a refugee, taught me to always ask "who benefits from this?". I've found it a useful question to ask when trying to understand various human actions in different contexts. It often revealed the mis-direction that was being done.

 

[limr]

What? Why? Where? When? Who?

These are relevant questions. The "How?" is usually less relevant. But not totally irrelevant, as the phrase "The ends justify the means." warns us. For to ignore the "how" is to take at face value whatever image we are looking at. And while this may be fine in an artistic way, it also hides the reason of creation of the image from us. This becomes a problem in propaganda, whether political, commercial, ideological, religious, or sectarian. So while we should not be slaves at the altar of technical excellence, we should be aware of how images can be manipulated.

My mother, who survived a dictatorship, and then WWII as a refugee, taught me to always ask "who benefits from this?". I've found it a useful question to ask when trying to understand various human actions in different contexts. It often revealed the mis-direction that was being done.

Funny, I learned something very similar in grad school, except it was phrased as, "Who paid for this data?"

 

[sashbar]

I'm not convinced that the 'why' is conscious. History is cyclical. The impressionists rejected realism and painted dots. Henri Breton and the surrealists of the early 20th century rejected the rigid structure of Victorian literature and created free-flowing narratives that had no resolution, but you could still emotionally connect to. Art, literature, fashion...when they get saturated with one thing for long enough, eventually people get frisky and start kicking back and so the pendulum swings. All the slick techno music or hair bands of the 80s got smashed the first time "Smells Like Teen Spirit" played on the radio.

So are people tired of the same old shtick and looking for something new? Yes. Why? Dunno - human nature? And in a sense - perhaps not in these particular details, but certainly in spirit - rejecting technical perfection in the search for emotional connection and creative content is only 'new to them' because they don't realize it's been done before. (Whoever 'they' are...).

Good that you have mentioned impressionists. Photography was one of the main reasons why they abandoned the "technical perfection" of realists and started to work differently. Technological progress was behind it, just as it is now. I agree with subconsious "why", but it is a different (complicated) topic, that is beyond my intelligence. So I will finish here by sending you the last Autumn leaf, fallen today from the tree in my backyard :

 

[sashbar]

But here's what hit me recently - you know what, even with all of that Justin Bieber music still sucks.

I have heard this name several times recently. Never heard his songs, so can not comment.

 

[robbins.photo]

But here's what hit me recently - you know what, even with all of that Justin Bieber music still sucks.

I have heard this name several times recently. Never heard his songs, so can not comment.

Lol... do yourself a favor an in this case do not educate yourself. The stuff is just awful.. lol

 

[amolitor]

I barely know anything about Bieber's songs, but I am pretty sure that it's simplistic to the point of wrong to say "Bieber sucks, Holiday was awesome, and that is just an objective fact" which seems to be the implication here.

ETA: Judgements about the quality of art of any kind are meaningless outside the context of that art. Art exists within a society, be it pop music, photography, or something else. Running down a rathole of technical merits, which is the usual approach here, gets you in trouble almost immediately as counterexamples can get dragged out pretty much endlessly. Bieber connects with his surrounding culture in an extremely powerful way, and that has nothing to do with whether he can sing, or whether you like his music.

 

[limr]

I barely know anything about Bieber's songs, but I am pretty sure that it's simplistic to the point of wrong to say "Bieber sucks, Holiday was awesome, and that is just an objective fact" which seems to be the implication here.

I thought the point was that real talent would be evident even with imperfect technology that degraded or interfered with some of the sound of Holiday's voice. In contrast, many of today's performers rely on the advanced technology to make their mediocre voices sound better.

Edit: I don't know if Bieber needs that technology to make his voice sound better because I can't stomach the thought of him much less the sound of the music, but perhaps it's more applicable to other performers who are popular these days. Don't ask me who they are though.

 

[amolitor]

Bieber uses autotune, which is where that weird metallic twang comes from.

But everyone does, and it doesn't matter if you can really sing or not. If you're not using autotune, you sound "wrong" to contemporary pop music fans. It's a stylistic flourish at this point, so whether he "needs" it or not is irrelevant. Billie Holiday has stylistic flourishes that her fans demanded too, you may rely on that! Mozart too. It's part of the nature of pop.

 

[robbins.photo]

I barely know anything about Bieber's songs, but I am pretty sure that it's simplistic to the point of wrong to say "Bieber sucks, Holiday was awesome, and that is just an objective fact" which seems to be the implication here.

ETA: Judgements about the quality of art of any kind are meaningless outside the context of that art. Art exists within a society, be it pop music, photography, or something else. Running down a rathole of technical merits, which is the usual approach here, gets you in trouble almost immediately as counterexamples can get dragged out pretty much endlessly. Bieber connects with his surrounding culture in an extremely powerful way, and that has nothing to do with whether he can sing, or whether you like his music.

Wasn't implying anything of the sort. I was stating it as fact. Bieber does suck. Holiday was awesome. Ten years from now Bieber fans will be embarrased to admit they ever listened to his stuff - same with all the gimmicky boy bands that have come and gone before him. Nobody is embarrased to admit they are a fan of Billie Holiday, they've never had to be - as for the rest, well the point still stands.

All the technical advantages in the universe will not substitute for a lack of real talent, nor will any amount of hair gel. Real art lasts - it stands the test of time.

 

[amolitor]

I was stating it as fact. Bieber does suck. Holiday was awesome.

Okie dokie.

 

[kathyt]

I just want to shoot whatever I want, wherever I want, and whomever I want without having so many damn rules. Sometimes it will be great, and other times it won't. Shoot what makes you content. You don't always have to appeal to the masses. Sometimes I could care less what comes out of my camera, but the experience is my reward.

 

[minicoop1985]

You know, I've been attempting to capture certain emotions in photos lately. It's for a project to help people understand the complexity of bipolar disorder. I can write until my fingers fall off or talk until I turn blue (that would take a while-I talk a LOT), but really, I felt like words just couldn't convey the emotions as well as a well composed photo. I add a little caption to each to help the viewer understand what it is I' trying to get across, but all the photos I put in that project are about feel (or lack thereof). *WARNING SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION TIME* If you're interested, I know I'm newer here and newer to true photography (meaning not snapshots), there's a link to the blog in my signature. I would really appreciate folks taking a look not because I crave attention, but so I can spread understanding of what bipolar 2 is.

As for photography being more about the "why" than the "how," isn't that what it's always been about? The "how" is most interesting to those who want to recreate something in the photo, the "why" to the greater audience-I think?

 

[robbins.photo]

I just want to shoot whatever I want, wherever I want, and whomever I want without having so many damn rules. Sometimes it will be great, and other times it won't. Shoot what makes you content. You don't always have to appeal to the masses. Sometimes I could care less what comes out of my camera, but the experience is my reward.

Oh yes, that's getting printed out and posted on my wall. WTG Kathy.

 

[amolitor]

Derrel managed to like my post twice. I am so pleased! And a little surprised.

 

[SCraig]

Scott, you reminded me of my old Uni teacher. She was The Queen of a Slide Rule and her nickname was Bloody Mary. She was a true Slide Rule virtuoso and we were hopeless. Her calculation speed was just jaw dropping, and we kept making mistakes all the time. Then one day suddenly ( literally within a week or so) everyone got a calculator. And the slide ruler was dead. She was devastated, because as a teacher, without a slide ruler, let's be honest, she was quite poor. She even tried to convince us that a slide ruler was good for our brain, unlike that stupid electronic calculator that makes no mistakes. Predictably, poor Blody Mary was left alone with her Knowledge. Probably she thought we were a lazy generation, always looking for shortcuts, trying to do things with the minimum of effort.. Unlike us she was not excited by the fact that a calculator works million times faster than any slide ruler and never ever makes mistakes. Probably she would say that a cube root of 267549, calculated on a ruler, would have a different smell and color and ultimately is more human..

I still have a couple of slide rules somewhere. I couldn't use one now if I had to because I was quick to embrace electronic calculators The first engineering company I worked at had some old mechanical rotary calculators that would do simple math but the user had to figure out where the decimal point went. Better than a slide rule but not by much.

I think it goes a bit deeper though. Most of the old(er) guys here will remember taking things apart when they were a kid just to see what made them "Tick" (I still have parts of a Micky Mouse watch I took apart when I was 6). Vacuum cleaners, clocks, anything mechanical was fair game if I could find a screwdriver and pliers.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that kids don't do that now. Want to know how a vacuum cleaner works? Google it and use the knowledge that someone else gained. Want to see the insides of a watch? It's on the internet somewhere and you won't wreck a watch looking at it. My point being that there is no urge to obtain knowledge for one's self any longer. There is no urge to "Tinker" with things and see how they work and how to make them better. Everything is "Canned" and already there for the reading. They don't understand that wrecking the watch to see what made it work was the fun part.