|
Beyond photoblogging
 |
Have been feeling the limitations of Flickr lately, even as I rush to post a new photo or compulsively check in at intervals to see what people are saying on my page. Flickr is what it is, of course; it's my responsibility to manage my relationship to it. And I'm well aware that without it (and fotolog before it) I would be much more photographically isolated than I am. I wouldn't have a forum to express these thoughts, for instance.
No, this is what you'd call a luxury problem. I'm thinking of the way Flickr drives work toward a certain style -- assuming one is, like me, hungry for approval (to a degree I'm embarrassed to admit). The "popular" Flickr photo, 1st off, must attract as a thumbnail. This means compositionally simple & bold. It means brightly colored or, if B & W, rich & contrasty. It also means brand new -- we sometimes say we like to see variations, but we really don't; we want to be dazzled with uniqueness. Then there's all the other stuff about popularity -- sex attracts, self portraits & personal stories attract (we love gossip; want to see each other) & so on. I'm not really objecting to these. Not dissing popularity. What we like is what we like.
I'm thinking of myself. The way I scan through my "Your contacts" page of thumbs, waiting to be beckoned to click (I have too many contacts; we probably all have too many contacts so I can't just visit them all); the way I sometimes visit a page & leave comments because I want to be visited & commented upon in turn; the way I sometimes RUSH to look, hurry to be gone, even from work that moves me, because I only have a little time.
The reason I volunteered for Positive Focus was to get out from behind the screen, to add other photocentric interactions than the ones online. To do things IN PERSON. And it's been helpful, been satisfying. But so little time...I don't want to restrict my Flickr time, but there's so much else to do (real life stuff, family, etc., not to mention the great 19-ton elephant in the room, WORKING FOR MONEY). I hope if I ever make it to retirement, I have half a brain left..
Anyway, wondered if anybody else worries about this stuff?
Originally posted at 9:53AM, 25 February 2006 PST
(
permalink
)
colorstalker edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
 |
I have a job already and don't need another one. The element of surprise is what attracts me to Flickr, as well as the venue to post and share my photos and interact with others, since in real life no one talks to anyone (too cool)...I take more photos and have a destination for them. I am challenged to see more and respect other's viewpoints. Getting out of the internet and into "reality" was the problem that the internet was invented for in the first place...people needed to connect. ha. So -
when is retirement and isn't that a capitalist/bourgeois construct designed to "retire" our minds and energies out of the so-called mainstream of life? why can't we just live until we die?
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Supply and demand would suggest the less images one puts up the more valuable they become. Of course there would be a need, a demand. I think "time on Flickr" is a variable in the equation - would you disappear? Probably. There are too many images coming into the system for any one contributor to matter much.
Most blogs aren't read much if at all, I assume that most images aren't seen much at all either.
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
av_producer (a group admin) edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
|
I have a job already too & if I could treat photography & Flickr as a fun, restful hobby I would.
By retirement I mean not having to push my way onto the subway 5 mornings a week & ride into Manhattan.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I know I just like to play with the concept of "retirement" and I drive a car to avoid crowds...
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I was thinking of a sabbatical from Flickr ...
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
the way I sometimes visit a page & leave comments because I want to be visited & commented upon in turn
This is a game that most people play, to lesser or greater extent. In the past I've found it troubling and it's made me feel quite shallow and dishonest but really it's just a contract that people enter into. It's quite funny, though, if I've stopped commenting on someone's pictures to see the comments from them on mine dropping off so blatantly.
There are also certain people who, if I comment on their latest picture, will almost without fail 'comment back' within the hour, but under no other circumstances will I receive a comment from them. That doesn't bother me particularly. It's so blatant that it's amusing.
Regarding posting particular kinds of pictures to get more response - I've considered that in the past but I'm set against it now. I've resolved to keep going, relentlessly, down the same road. If nothing else it will annoy some people which is fine by me.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@ dubmill
"it's just a contract that people enter into"
I think this is driven by the "scoring" mechanisms on Flickr. If every image is special, then none are. It never seemed that way on Fotlog.
I would like to think I am in a conversation with others photostreams over time and they with mine.
I use favorites to explicitly let the creator recognize that I have looked and connected with an image within the stream.
I don't think I've ever thought to post something to get more response, in fact I am the worst possible judge of what people will respond to.
There may be a dominate aesthetic on Flickr. I thought it was interesting that they hired Heather of Jpeg magazine - since there is definite aesthetic they strive for - not sure if it snapshot aestehtic or not.
Hey Tim, do you think Eggelston would be considered interesting on Flickr?
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
av_producer (a group admin) edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
|
I don't like the dominant flickr aesthetic. I also don't like JPG magazine and would not want anything published in it (not that they would want me, of course).
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Yes, I wasn't endorsing the dominate aesthetic or Jpeg mag and I would be photo non-gratis there as I was for the Fotolog book.
I guess the difference is that the Flickr aestehtic would be organinic and self-fufilling. Where as the curatorial stand of the Fotolog book and the Jpeg mag are subjective and can be at least discussed on their own merits.
Certianly there are image makers whose work I am a fan of that are included in the Fotolog book and/or Jpeg mag so I guess I am ambivalent.
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
av_producer (a group admin) edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
|
photo non-gratis there as I was for the Fotlog book.
That surprises me - the Fotolog book, I mean, not JPG magazine.
Regarding JPG magazine, I've never actually seen a copy of it, just read some of the threads on their flickr group and also looked at their website. Things that irk me - they have a policy on non-manipulation for one thing, and from what I can see there's a bias towards brightly-coloured, striking images, often with a pervading sense of (to me) artificial positivity about human life, ie as it is in the world today. I don't know, it has a very Starbucksy feel to it.
the Flickr aestehtic would be organinic and self-fufilling
It seems to me that the dominant aesthetic is as above (ie my remarks re. JPG), plus in general terms an aspiration towards excellence of middle market traditional photography. I see a lot of people on flickr who maybe have just acquired a camera and seem to be aspiring towards that craft of photographic magazine excellence - mastering various techniques.. macros, use of different lens and stops, filters etc. etc.
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
dubmill edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
|
I shall begin dropping "Starbucksy" into conversations from this day forward ....
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
photography is a very democratic medium, as long as you have the means - ranging from a disposable to a high end machine - and the interest/desire. unlike painting which requires more effort not to mention is messy...and you may need the requisite talent/skill although that hasnt stopped many people...
starbucksy needs to be introduced in wikipedia if it has not already gotten there...
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
catt55
"photography is a very democratic medium"
I'd argue that the democratization in the pixel based display distribution is the second wave - and this is where it gets interesting.
On screen everything is made of the same glowing substance - a daVinci, an Arbus, a catt55 all start as equal objects to be judged on their aesthetic and content.
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
av_producer (a group admin) edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
|
all start as equal objects to be judged on their aesthetic and content
In theory yes (and true certainly on sites like flickr), but won't be in the broader art/photographic world because of hierarchies of art criticism, lingering notions of high/low art, and the continued existence of established, gatekeeper-overseen avenues of distribution.
It's possible those hierarchies will be gradually eroded and washed away by the new grass roots digital movement but it will take a very long time.
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
dubmill edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
|
I agree dubmill on the imperial "object" industry and the economics and hierarchies that drive it won't be soon imperiled by flickr. However the selection and the purchase of images (call-it-art-or-not) will increasingly be because of online exposure/catalogue.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Yes. It strikes me as being rather similar to the popular music industry. The online 'amateur' music distribution networks that five years ago were considered an interesting adjunct to the 'proper' music industry are gradually becoming an arena which growing numbers of consumers regard as their main point of consumption, potentially sidelining the corporate networks.
As an example of the shift, it is now de rigueur for corporate music artists to have a presence on myspace.com (which started as a purely amateur arena).
The difference, of course, is that pop music doesn't have that high/low hierarchy built into it. It is much more open to free movement by market/technology-driven forces.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It seems to me we're talking about an extremely complicated process of assigning value that's now in flux. On the one hand you have a vast & growing blizzard of imagery on Flickr & elsewhere, much of it very good -- in fact, more of it very good than can possibly end up being properly valued in any public or economic sense -- & on the other you have the people & institutions who will decide what gets valued. Call them taste-makers or opinion-leaders or whatever you want. Yes, we all have our individual favorites lists. I'm referring to the favorites lists which become OTHER people's favorites lists. JPG magazine becomes one of those institutions & Heather becomes one of those people. I agree with dubmill's very astute analysis of the JPG aesthetic. But it may not be so much about the particular aesthetic as about the willingness to proclaim (& enforce) it. The JPG site to me demonstrates a seemingly tireless willingness to hector & play the pedant. And that becomes its source of power. I mean, what IS it with this 'no manipulation' shit? What kind of mania does it take to write 2,000 fiery posts defining whether borders constitute manipulation? The fotolog book's aesthetic, I'm guessing, will be much broader & more inclusive, but it too has its definitions (how could it not?) As does the NYC photobloggers group. And I'm sure many other nascent power centers I'm not aware of. In addition there's the whole curatorial gatekeeping function coming out of art schools, galleries & museums-- so that art students are literally being trained to meet those needs; many of these kids now have shows without ever having taken a 'straight' picture, e.g.
I like Ron's statement: "I would like to think I am in a conversation with others photostreams over time and they with mine."
And this by dubmill: "Regarding posting particular kinds of pictures to get more response - I've considered that in the past but I'm set against it now. I've resolved to keep going, relentlessly, down the same road."
That seems the right course. To the extent my anxious & disorganized life allows me, it's the one I choose. But something I once heard is also worth considering: There would never have been an Abstract Expressionist movement without Clement Greenberg. There would never have been a flowering of photojournalism without Life Magazine, (for all its flaws). We are thinkers, writers & teachers as well as photographers. Promoting our own visions probably ends up being a lot more valuable than spending time feeling bad because others aren't.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
my perspective on art - high or low or medium - is tainted by 20+ years of teaching at the public school level (K-12) meaning I have no choice on who(m) i teach no screening is done it's all equal and that more or less blasted me out of whatever high falutin' art school/world mind-set I may have had - although I was always a rebel (secretly) and never was in the "in" crowd - salon des refusees when the people doing the refusing were the ones originally refused...etc etc...I trust no hierarchy, no system, no "rules" and no "rules breaking" creating more rules...my faves are the pics I literally pick out of the pile to keep, to save, as one may pick up a shell on a beach, a stone, a flower, a piece of detritus, a look, a color, a texture, light, a shape...my house is full of bits of random things I had to save - as my 7 year old nephew says "you have neat stuff" - the eye mind and heart of a child...which is what I hope we and all others as "artists" (humans?) should and can forever hold onto...
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Catt, What you describe is what art -- making & collecting -- should be. I was a teacher too, high school & jr high, & a cab driver & a roofer & blah blah blah, cause I thought all that working class hero stuff was how a real non-effete artist was supposed to live. Because of my upbringing & other reasons I couldn't actually define myself as an artist though; I couldn't live in cities & stay close to the system that hooks art into our economic system. I was too pure for that. Eventually, I became a journalist -- words & later photos -- which is what I am now & it seems honorable enough. But what I want to do now is make art, write about it, teach it, & make a living from it. So I feel it's important to figure this stuff out, if possible.
My house too is full of beautiful work I've picked up over the years. It comes mostly from friends, many of whom make a decent living as artists, but none of them are rich & none of them are famous. Like them, I just want to make enough to take care of my responsibilities & keep doing my work. And, oh yeah & I don't want it to be about making work that reliably pleases mass audiences -- what dubmill above calls "excellent...middle market traditional photography." Which is the hard part.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
This thread is great reading, and somewhere in the back of my mind i hear doors creaking open, but for the most part it's too meaningful for me to really asess. You are artists that i personally assign and reassign that title to as i see your work, and in comparison i seem to be a snappist, a chaotic photographer that rarely knows why i take a shot and frequently has little or no idea what will be popular (in the Flickr sense) and what will go by uncommented. Maybe too that's why my avatar is cartoony rather than a photo of me, i don't know really. I do know i post too many photos to be considered discriminating or even 'street smart' about my photography, but i honestly love each image for something, even if its the idea (something i silently, mentally accuse other snappists of).
I got caught up in the bustle of activity and the accompanying enthusiasm of JPG magazine enough to pay for the first issue of JPG mag. But then it began to dawn on me that it really wasn't any different from my experience as a small-press editor many years ago (when HTML was mimeographs), and that's it really is about those who decide what is good and what must fall rusting by the wayside. I was in the editor's seat and a position of helping to decide the new black and hated it even then. I was accepting poetry and fiction that i wished i would/could write and so WAS discriminating a vision to other people. All because what i really wanted to do was write.
So now i carry my light-gathering machine with me and am in some way glad i don't know why i'm holding it except that i know it's right.
(Oh, and Ron, when you say, I was thinking of a sabbatical from Flickr ..., that's a place i just came back from, and it was good to clear my head from it, but i see Flickr didn't change in my absence, either socially or programmatically that i can tell. Hell, it's even still beta!)
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
zen edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
|
I've just finished watching the closing ceremonies of the Olympics from Torino - I also watched the entire 4 hour opening ceremonies - and what strikes me is how visual and technologically-driven these spectacles are more and more each time..so I think we are very affected by this access to creating visual statements and in our "digital" age (sitting with my iBook, looking at the flat-panel t.v. hooked into my sound system...I may live in a dump but I have neat toys...) we simply just have to jump aboard and hang on for dear life - and enjoy the ride - too much to stress about in the mundane world of work, laundry, and staying alive...art IMHO should give joy, enlightenment, and be an escape TO our truer selves...and yeah I am feeling that need to be an artist on my own terms and to avoid the usual pitfalls that beset the artistically inclined once we make moves out of our heads and into the world...we could form a co-op and talk to ourselves but I think that is just oldschool and then you get rules and groupthink and other pesky, boring stuff...stay loose...this conversation is stimulating...
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
catt55 edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
|
If there was a top down aesthetic I would worry. But Flickr is a technology company, not an aesthetic curation company. They are going to make their money on (quoting dubmill)a lot of people on flickr who maybe have just acquired a camera and seem to be aspiring towards that craft of photographic magazine excellence - mastering various techniques.. macros, use of different lens and stops, filters etc. etc.
Flickr is just another method of introducing people to my work. An audience of people who are looking. Who want to see images. Portfolio reviews, gallery submissions, shows are additional pieces of the puzzle.
I have said this before, that Flickr and Fotolog before it has allowed me to be prolific without purpose. And the story over time that is told in the photostream I feel is a search for thngs at many levels: a search for a style, for a coherent body of work, for what is essential - a point of view, to be more direct, to take risks, to be spontaneous and less conceptual. To offer something authentic and direct as an expression of one's self.
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
av_producer (a group admin) edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
 |
Ron,we all want to do that,but don't necessarily have the talent(sorry for coming so late into the conversation)to appreciate what is authentic and what is not.Many times I agonized(true)whether to post an image and after i had posted it it had a very good response.The agony comes from the fear of being misunderstood,the extasy from the percentage of favs to total views(and other masturbatory practices).
I am new to all this(nine months of photography) and have a lot to learn,but the way I look at this art form is that like monkeys without knowing much through the random process there will be thousands if not millions masterpieces without the MASTERS.And we need THEM more than they need US(just to get it off mychest :))...
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Crater
I think each and every photostream works toward what is authentic and the longer the story (in images/over time) the clearer that style, vision and coherence comes. I have contacts that have all kinds of styles and I look forward to the additions that come each day. So authentic is not an aesthetic but rather a revleation of work.
I think the "randon process" as you call it is the same - the prolific without purpose that I tend to feel.
I think you are on to something with "masterpieces without the MASTERS".
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
av_producer (a group admin) edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
|
Photography unlike the other art form is prone to do just that.In reference to Positive Focus when I look at the body of work it is quite eclectic and an independent observer would say "well is is a better quality flickr central".
To avoid this ,more discussions along the lines of this one are needed...
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
crater edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
 |
"the longer the story (in images/over time) the clearer that style, vision and coherence comes.
This touches on something I'm struggling with. I can see style, vision, and coherence in others' work, but I'll be damned if I have a clue about my own. I've been trying to pull together a coherent group of images for weeks now and have just about given up. I have over 1200 images in my stream and it's still murky as the Mississippi.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I think it's like getting a lot of stuff out of your system all those shots you keep seeing when you dont have a camera with you and then eventually something will happen without your trying so hard...as Ron said a style emerges but it's not "style" it's authentic it's unplanned and it's the real deal as far as "art" is concerned...from the perspective of a painter, I take the brush in hand and even though I may have something in mind I really have no idea what will happen once the brush touches the canvas...it's "the inexplicable" as a famous architecture professor once said in a class I audited...
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Tim, it is fascinating to read your thoughts and compare them with mine. I thought I'd add a bit about how I see the issue of contacts and commenting etc.
I have 67 contacts and I feel that's about the limit of my capacity, since I do check out regularly their work and try to leave comments on the stuff that I like. I try not to leave comments unless there's something I want to say beyond the quite understandable desire to remind your contact of yourself (the difficult art of leaving meaningful comments is another issue.) In addition, I feel I should be exploring some of my contacts archives and it is a long process (when I add a person as a contact, if he or she has a relatively small archive, I would usually browse it all and make myself a mental note to return to it later in case there are pictures I'd like to comment on.) Of course, it is all very time consuming, but I feel that's part of my commitment to flickr, more or less as it used to be part of my commitment to Pentax forum on dpReview, where I'd spent time before. To make it easier on myself, I recently deleted several contacts that answered both of the following two criteria:
a) they did not contribute any comments on my stream (even if I was on their contact list);
b) I felt that their work was not interesting enough for me to keep in touch with. For some, they should not have been added as my contacts in the first place (but I did add them as to reciprocate for them adding me, something I try not to do anymore); others I just perceived as stuck in their creative process without being able to produce new exciting work which would merit my attention. I think that in order to be honest to ourselves such culling of the contact list should be done periodically, even at the risk of offending someone. When I find a person on flickr whose work interests me, I'd like to add him or her to my contact list, but, again, my capacity is only so big, thus I need to decide whether to throw an existing contact out to make way for a new one.
As to faves, there is certainly the phenomenon of "grade inflation" going on: If you have so many faves (I have 355, oh my!) then they cannot be all very special. Unfortunately, I've been too reckless in distributing them, marking shots that I liked but that weren't necessarily anything I'd like to return to later (isn't that what the faves should be for?); there was also the desire to make that person feel good. Now it's too late, I am not going to undo my faves, but if I were to start over, I'd be much more selective (and indeed I see some people do just that: they'd leave a very nice comment, but won't mark as a fave; I see it is a sign of honesty on their part.)
I think I should stop this verbal diarrhea before you all fall asleep :)
P.S. I have to add that I cannot see how "Flickr drives work toward a certain style" in your case. I feel like you actually ignore the conventions of "likable" photos on flickr, posting whatever interests you as an artist at the moment. Correct me if I am wrong...
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
skyredoubt edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
|
The problem of too many contacts is difficult. Sounds like you've found a way to deal with it, skyredoubt. I am smiling a bit, however, about your likening the liberal use of faves to "grade inflation." In the best cases, I see the communication between contacts as less of a process of judgment or grading and more as an extension of what goes on face to face between friends who have an honest interest in each other's welfare. I have a zillion faves (actually 2005) and I don't particularly care what a fave "should be for" in anyone else's mind. Some of my faves are for images I truly think are out of this world. Others are for images I truly think are something special within that person's body of work. In both cases my intention is to acknowledge the bit of gold I see in an image and I frankly admit to having arbitrary criteria for "bit".
One of the things I most appreciate about Flickr is that it can be a very supportive environment and I am grateful for the kinder, gentler ways my Flickr contacts have encouraged me to try new things. I know how much that has fostered my growth and confidence and ability to take some risks. I can go out and get beaten up in the world any old time, or I can be encouraged on Flickr. Jeez, which would I choose? Maybe Flickr first and then the world.
(I think I've been hanging out at Utata too long. I don't think I used to be so ....um, Utatan.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Utatan, Chris? Should we start looking for a deprogrammer?
BTW, what a word. Utata. Does one pronounce it with an upper-crust drawl? -- "Cheerio, dahling, I'm off to U-taw-ta!" Or like a stage Italian urging his offspring to consume a root vegetable? -- "Eat a u-tay-ta!"
Sorry.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Ha. I'm laughing, Tim, and not necessarily at you :)
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I say U-tah-ta you say U-tay-ta????
the web is so fickle. one minute someone is all over you and then POOF! gone, vanished, nada...and that's what happens- it's so slippery, so elusive, so transient...is anything real anymore?? are we all just a figment of our (collective) imaginings/desires/egos?? we keep coming back for more more more - where are my contacts? why aren't they saying anything today???? is my existence so fragile??? (A: YES)
should this be the next theme pool??? huh?? huh???
talk some more
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
catt55 edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
|
Catt, I SO identify. We're hardly the 1st people to note the parallels between photoblog interactions & oh, say, crack addiction, but that doesn't make it any less shocking. I know, I know. Don't worry. We're not "figments." For instance, I am spooning this lovely 0%-fat Greek yogurt into my mouth. Very real. So hi there. Here I am.
Interestingly, your post actually addresses what I was getting at way back at the start of this thread: Do I need validation on Flickr to feel I exist as a photographer? What is it Flickr viewers respond to & does it really count as validation? Supposing I'm getting this validation or at least some random (addictive) doses of it, does that distract, subvert, deflate my needs & abilities to connect photographically outside this virtual world? I think they are valid questions.
Of course there are lots of others that could also use an airing. Work has been particularly demanding for me the last few days & I'm feeling mentally hammered down. But I've been thrilled by how lively the discussion has been on this & the last topic & would like to try to keep it going. So I'll definitely work something up soon. In the meantime, it's an open discussion & anybody can speak...
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I like the 2% greek yoghurt. once we cross the line from virtual to "real" we enter the continuum of mediocrity. I can't explain this thoroughly right now but hold that thought and more later.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I say "no", you don't need flickr validation. It is nice to have, but it is not what makes me feel I am good or bad or whatever as a photgrapher. There are a couple of people (my wife's one of them) whose opinion I trust and whose validation is important to me, beyond that everything else is a bonus. Flickr can serve as a test baloon for you trying to see what pictures will have some "commercial" success, but also to a limited extent, since, as we noticed, a lot of response is about "politics" and being able to manage your contacts and post in the right groups etc.
Of course, my opinion is subjective, but I know some photographers, whom I won't call by name, who, by flickr standards, should hang their work in a museum, while my opinion of their work is nowhere near as flattering.
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
skyredoubt edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
 |
I think I find Flickr more socially validating than finding any toward the stuff I make. I'm fairly fine with my work (probably because Dr. Stellefson made me spend a year doing nothing but drawing the figure in 30 second studies - dues paid goes a long way with me) and don't expect most here to have an opinion on it that I would take so seriously. Hell, I rarely take anyone's opinion seriously regardless.
What I do get from this whole interaction is motivation and appreciation. I know Ron will be posting something around the time I am waking up and this has been the case since I first ran across him on Fotolog (although then I was more likely going to bed than waking up at that time). I get a great comfort from this. We don't need to comment trade much or talk, but I know he's there - his body of work will increase along with my appreciation. Then there is the 16 year old who takes amazing portraits, has little to say about Art, but a lot about video games. In profiles I have often read the humble, "I take some photos and am not very good, but I love to look at the great stuff here on Flickr" - and I love those people because they appreciate us - are generous with their natures and comments - give something instead of looking for a stroked ego.
One thing I don't get here in the Flickrverse is the people who so easily and often offer critiques. In my opinion there needs to be a level of trust and/or respect between myself and anyone that advises me on my work. The whole Delete Me thing I don't get it unless it is a means to teach people how to be clever albeit cruel reviewers.
Finally - Flickr has been a much better experience having gotten drunk with some of its members. Like I said when I began this - it's a great place for social validation. (Now I'm going to go kiss my partner and refill our coffee cups - we met on Flickr and he loves anything I make) *wink*
Originally posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Aaron Edwards edited this topic 45 months ago.
|
 |
the utatanism of utata was precisely the reason I chose to leave that group. Flickr is a social networking tool that has photography as its medium. Or dare I say: image making. That's it.
I never show my professional stuff on flickr, and I like and use it as a visual journal and I value it for the online, social network it fosters.
As to "a flickr aesthetic": there probably is one. but it is no less arbitrary or less exasperating than the Leica rangefinder filmgrain, silver gelatin print aesthetic that I was brought up on in terms of photo aesthetics.
Times are changing: the world of old photography is no longer. The main difference between pro and amateur used to be that pros were just able to shoot more, and look at photos more and so developed "correct" aesthetics sooner and more consistently. Digital has made a potential "pro" of everyone. This harping on "correct" aesthetics is obsolete, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
From my own profile:
With a new and rapidly developing medium, there is no recognised aesthetic response to the characteristic feel of the digital image and it is exploring this aspect that most interests me.
This is a view has developed out of my experience on fotolog and here and seeing the huge range of work available.
Posted 45 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Positive Focus /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Positive Focus discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
