# It's a matter of taste...



## runnah (Sep 18, 2013)

This is relevant to all art forms but we will focus on photography.

So as most regulars on here will agree that overused filter packs and PS actions ruin a photo. But contrary to folks here 99% of the population loves it and buys it in droves. Most wedding photos I see have some sort to similar effect.

So are we wrong? If it is so bad than why is it so popular? Who is to say what is bad or good?


----------



## tirediron (Sep 18, 2013)

Why were jeans worn so low that you could see the guy's underwear popular?  There's no accounting for taste!    Seriously though, I think there are a couple of reasons.  First, because our customers are generally not very artistically educated, and they think that something looks good because it's new & unusual.  If they see the funky PS action'd image next to a well shot, well lit image, I'm guessing that they'll probably go with the latter, and second because it's trendy and people are sheep.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 18, 2013)

its not about "good" or "bad". its about marketing. 
if you can market it well, you can sell it. 
its what keeps fast food businesses going. 
and magnetic "healing" bracelets. 
and magicical healing water and air filters.

you just gotta find the right target audience, and give 'em a great sales pitch. 
how else could an early morning infomercial guy sell a set of 250 various "high quality" knives for $99? 
no different than a $50 portrait session with unlimited pictures and unlimited poses on CD with copyright release.


----------



## kathyt (Sep 18, 2013)

I am not seeing people in my market buy it in droves. Maybe you are targeting the wrong market?


----------



## amolitor (Sep 18, 2013)

The thing people want from professional photographers, in almost all cases, is "some pictures that look like these other pictures I saw someplace".

That goes for the people who do marketing for Bottega Veneta all the way down to people who are looking for a $300 wedding package. At the lower ends this generally means buying either the same plugins, or cheaper lookalike plugins. At the higher ends of course it's deconstructing looks and putting the back together in a way better suited to the client's needs, but that's gonna cost some money.

To Fine Artists looking "like that other picture but maybe with a little twist" is anathema, but to commercial it's the name of the game.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2013)

"No one ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the American public," is a famous quotation attributed to H.L. Mencken. I think we all know what he meant. Look at what is "popular" these days...trashy, low-brow "reality television" shows; Justin Bieber sold more records a couple of years ago than virtually ANY 'serious' artist managed to sell....Ernest & Julio Gallo sell more wine than any other winemaker in the USA...what is "popular" is simply put, what the large masses of people happen to think is..."good". Snooki is a bigger *star* than Meryl Streep--at least today. Yes, it really is a matter of "taste"...Ernest & Julio Gallo's one-gallon $12.99 jugs of California chablis would be laughed out of any serious wine tasting, but hey...it's affordable,there's a LOT in the jug, AND it gets you drunk...so...


----------



## Designer (Sep 18, 2013)

The short answer is; bad is popular.  

Bad art, bad music, and bad television are very popular with the low-information crowd.  

No, we're not wrong.  I shall assume for this discussion that most photographers on here who have seen more than 20 photographs will be able to discern the good from the bad.  

Now the real question should be: "How do we educate our clients?"  (Not mine, yours)

Believe me, I've tried educating people in other aspects of life choices, and it isn't easy.  

Maybe impossible.  

Definitely impossible when they have no desire to change anything they are doing, or read anything that might make them think.

So if anybody has any ideas regarding educating people about photographic art, please tell us.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 18, 2013)

It certainly makes us feel clever to say that the masses have no taste, that they are dumb, and that by implication we have the Secret Knowledge, which makes us Awesome.

If it's getting rockets to the moon, there are answers that won't work. If it's music, art, photographs, well, it's taste and intersubjectivity. There is no objective standard for right or wrong answers.  There is no Secret Knowledge. There's just cliquey little obnoxious clubs. You might get a little traction with "well, that Bieber stuff might be popular now, but it won't last, like Beethoven" but then someone's gonna have to explain The Beatles and Andy Warhol to me.

TPF needs to make up its collective mind whether Cindy Sherman is ****, or if instagram is ****. It's pretty much got to be one or the other. If they're both ****, then you're pretty much left with "well, bright colorful sharp photographs of bugs and stuff is pretty much the only art that's any good" which, god help us, I sincerely hope is not the right answer.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> This is relevant to all art forms but we will focus on photography.
> 
> So as most regulars on here will agree that overused filter packs and PS actions ruin a photo. But contrary to folks here 99% of the population loves it and buys it in droves. Most wedding photos I see have some sort to similar effect.
> 
> So are we wrong? If it is so bad than why is it so popular? Who is to say what is bad or good?



In my university fine arts classes, we studied and learned about the many differences between *kitsch*, and fine art.

Dogs Playing Poker is one of the most-popular "painting" themes in the USA. Based on popularity, the concept of Dogs Playing Poker must be "better" than say, Guernica, or the Mona Lisa...you know, that weird scribbly-like painting, or the painting of the chick who didn't give a smile or even a big *duck lips expression* when the old dude painted her 'pitcher'.

Obviously, there always have been, and always will be, arbiters of "taste" and "quality". And kitsch junk like Dogs Playing Poker will continue to adorn basements and rumpus rooms all across Amurrrica.


----------



## cynicaster (Sep 18, 2013)

Yes, it&#8217;s all a matter of taste.  The difference between high-brow and low-brow tastes isn&#8217;t that either one is &#8220;right&#8221; or &#8220;wrong&#8221;, it&#8217;s simply that the high-brow tastes are more discerning.  I think it&#8217;s really that simple. 

Somebody who has a passion for something is going to pay a lot more attention  and will care about the nuances of that thing, whereas the average person will be more easily won over by &#8220;accessibility&#8221;.  This immediate accessibility is usually achieved through some kind of shallow &#8220;tactic&#8221; (for lack of a better term)&#8212;e.g., the perfectly autotuned and saccharine-sweet pop melodies of Bieber, the &#8220;so cooool&#8221; special effect of selective color, the newborn baby contorted into a stupid-ass unnatural pose (&#8220;awwww, so cute!&#8221, the overuse of sodium and sweeteners in food to make them &#8220;yummy&#8221;, etc. 

As pixmedic pointed out, savvy marketers know all of this and exploit it to their advantage, but those with discerning tastes are not so easily fooled by cheap tricks and will always seek more substance and depth.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> "No one ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the American public," is a famous quotation attributed to H.L. Mencken. I think we all know what he meant. Look at what is "popular" these days...trashy, low-brow "reality television" shows; Justin Bieber sold more records a couple of years ago than virtually ANY 'serious' artist managed to sell....Ernest & Julio Gallo sell more wine than any other winemaker in the USA...what is "popular" is simply put, what the large masses of people happen to think is..."good". Snooki is a bigger *star* than Meryl Streep--at least today. Yes, it really is a matter of "taste"...Ernest & Julio Gallo's one-gallon $12.99 jugs of California chablis would be laughed out of any serious wine tasting, but hey...it's affordable,there's a LOT in the jug, AND it gets you drunk...so...



A $2 bottle of wine that is significantly *cheaper *than Ernest & Julio Gallo has won state-wide California wine tasting competitions in 2 different recent years:
'Two-Buck Chuck' Snags Top Wine Prize : NPR
The judgment of California: Charles Shaw chardonnay is state?s best

And Gallo itself has won multiple awards for years in a row at the international San Francisco Wine Competition, which is also a blind taste competition.
Lodi News-Sentinel - Google News Archive Search

You may not like it.  But the hypothetical data you claim to back up your position simply isn't true.  Sort of like when you incorrectly claimed a day or two ago that no trained professional ever would crop the top off of a head in a portrait.



SOMETIMES you're right, and cheap, popular things are terrible when measured objectively somehow (like a cheap toy leaching chemicals or something).  Other times, they are not at all (like the wine).  
If things aren't even always what they seem with more measurable industries, then how to distinguish between these two possibilities when dealing with less easily objectively measured things, like image filter effects and their beauty, is entirely non-trivial, and quite worth stopping and seriously considering.
How DO we decide or make any claims about any of this?

I'm pretty sure "Derrel's aesthetic opinion" is not the right answer to that question. Nor is Gavjenks' or anybody else here, nor anybody else anywhere in particular. So what else do we go based on?


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 18, 2013)

we go based on..."if someone CAN sell it, they WILL sell it" 
there is a market for pretty much everything, at pretty much every level. 
there are people willing to pay for quality (or prestige), and people that are only concerned with price. 
sometimes you can meet somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 18, 2013)

But do sales that explain quality? Or just marketing success?

Marketing success is comparatively easy to define. Things that sell better were the ones that were marketed correctly, pretty much The End.

That's probably not the same thing as a measure of true quality though, or do you mean to say that indeed it is?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2013)

Gavjenks said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure "Derrel's aesthetic opinion" is not the right answer to that question. Nor is Gavjenks' or anybody else here, nor anybody else anywhere in particular. So what else do we go based on?



Do you know what kitsch means? Are you trying to tell me that Dogs Playing Poker is good art?

Yeah, Gallo California Chardonnay at $12.99 a gallon is GREAT WINE!!!!!!!!!!! It gets you really,really drunk, for under $13!

Watch the documentary movie "Somm", about the master sommelier's exam process, then get back to me on the $12.99 per gallon Gallo jug wine. The styrofoam cup crowd loves it.






Meanwhile, watch your mailbox for a great copy of Dogs Playing Poker on black velvet, done with genuine UV pigments...it would be the PERFECT centerpiece for a rowdy, rip-roaring, drunken, Gallo jug-wine-fuelled black light party! It's one of the finest paintings I've ever seen! I'm sending it to you all rolled up in an old roll of Christmas wrapping paper. So nobody will be tempted to steal it 'fer themself's!


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 18, 2013)

Forget the issue about why most people will buy something.
That's important if we are intending to sell things.
More interesting, at least to me, is why 'knowledgeable' people will like and appreciate different things.
Why do I like some wine, some beer, some kinds of pictures more than others?

It's easy to dismiss this as_ de gustibus non est disputandum_ but why are there differences in taste and how can some things be almost universally liked/disliked?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2013)

1980's hair - Google Search

Some of those styles are HOT!!!

This one in particular looks pretty good....thinking it might look great on me! mullet+1.jpg

I know this style has come to be associated with low education levels and trailer park communities and chronic unemployment and alcoholism, but doggone it, it looks...cool. I mean...right? _de gustibus non est disputandum_*, etc..

*_Maybe I could go with a cooler, less controversial hairstyle, like this one?_besethairever.jpg


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 18, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> But do sales that explain quality? Or just marketing success?
> 
> Marketing success is comparatively easy to define. Things that sell better were the ones that were marketed correctly, pretty much The End.
> 
> That's probably not the same thing as a measure of true quality though, or do you mean to say that indeed it is?



I only meant that there are plenty of "crappy" products that sell well. 
maybe its a matter of marketing, maybe  more a matter of price point. the two sometimes go hand in hand. 
im sure there are plenty of quality products that never made it due to poor marketing. 

my point is, quality is only part of the equation. 
sometimes low price wins over quality. sometimes quality is more important to someone that price. 
I dont think there is a way to measure "true quality"... quality means different things to different people. 
and is a "quality" product that is priced too high to sell still "quality"? or is a product only good if it sells? and how many have to be sold?
lot of quantifications...i dont really think there is an actual answer. there is only what people are willing to buy, and what they are not willing to buy.


----------



## kathyt (Sep 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> 1980's hair - Google Search
> 
> Some of those styles are HOT!!!
> 
> ...


There are some amazing styles in there. I will be using some of them at my next appointment!


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 18, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > 1980's hair - Google Search
> ...



I would love to see you with the Grace Jones look.  I dare you!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > 1980's hair - Google Search
> ...



*I like what you did with your hair in this shot, Kay-Thor...looks great on you, what with the braided headpiece!
*


----------



## Designer (Sep 18, 2013)

1. The professional photographers here who attempt to create good photography probably do so with the intention of selling it to a client.  I think sometimes the client pipes up and declares that she wants a portrait with "The Works".  The poor photog attempts to talk her out of it, but in the end capitulates and gives the lady what she wants.  And hopes that none of his friends on TPF see it.

2.  Almost invariably, those with more discerning tastes have developed such over a period of time in which she studies fine art.  This experience gives her a good background with which to judge any art that is presented.


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 18, 2013)

Free will and all wired differently with overlap?  That's my final answer.  I keep going round and round until I end back at that conclusion.

Designer, I am trying to work something out between the word educate vs. the word influence.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> But contrary to folks here 99% of the population loves it and buys it in droves.
> 
> ***snipped***
> 
> So are we wrong? If it is so bad than why is it so popular? Who is to say what is bad or good?



If I'm creating an image for myself, then I'm the sole arbiter of what is "good" and what isn't. If I'm shooting for a client, and what they want is something I would consider "not good", I'll keep that opinion to myself, since I'm not the one writing the check...



tirediron said:


> ...I think there are a couple of reasons. First, because our customers are generally not very artistically educated, and they think that something looks good because it's new & unusual. If they see the funky PS action'd image next to a well shot, well lit image, I'm guessing that they'll probably go with the latter, and second because it's trendy and people are sheep.



Quite honestly, I've spoken to countless photographers who believe they're "educated" when, in fact, they're anything but. I think that's often the case. People come onto internet forums, post a few images, get some positive feedback and conclude that they're "educated. As to what is "good" and what is not, we're no more or less educated than anyone else. We just happen to be the one who took the picture...



Designer said:


> The short answer is; bad is popular.
> 
> Bad art, bad music, and bad television are very popular with the low-information crowd.



This kind of immature attitude helps to perpetuate things. "Low information"? Regarding what? The technical aspects of a photograph? Maybe, but a paying client doesn't need to know the technical aspects of what they want to pay for. They just need to know that they enjoy looking at what they're paying for. That's ridiculously subjective...



> No, we're not wrong. I shall assume for this discussion that most photographers on here who have seen more than 20 photographs will be able to discern the good from the bad.



In order to come to that conclusion, you need to be able to quantify "good" and "bad" in the eyes of a paying client, and then balance that against your understanding of those. Good luck with the former...



> Now the real question should be: "How do we educate our clients?" (Not mine, yours)



If a client is writing you a check, the proper response isn't to "educate" them. The proper response is to say "Thank you" as you accept their check...



> Definitely impossible when they have no desire to change anything they are doing, or read anything that might make them think.



Again, this assumes that we, as photographers, have some innate ability to "educate" someone. Photography, as an art form, is no different than sculpting or painting...



> So if anybody has any ideas regarding educating people about photographic art, please tell us.



Why do you think you need to do that? Is it because "people" are buying the types of photos you don't produce?

The proper response to that is to adapt. You're not being paid to make someone think, or to "educate" anyone. You're being paid to provide a product to a client and, simply stated, that client's opinion matters more than yours...



Designer said:


> 1. The professional photographers here who attempt to create good photography probably do so with the intention of selling it to a client. I think sometimes the client pipes up and declares that she wants a portrait with "The Works". The poor photog attempts to talk her out of it, but in the end capitulates and gives the lady what she wants. And hopes that none of his friends on TPF see it.



I wouldn't care. The word "client" means I'm being paid. The reality is that the majority of the people here are _not _being paid. Accordingly, they have free reign to opine as they do, and that's fine. At the end of the day, though, the majority of my "friends on the TPF" aren't getting paid for what they shoot, so their opinions will mean little with respect to what should be paid for, what should not be paid for, and what I did or didn't do to produce an image they may not like...


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 18, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Accordingly, they have free reign to opine as they do,



Actually that should be 'free rein', based on the concept of 'reining in a horse' or giving it the aforementioned 'free rein'.

'Free reign' is an unfortunately common misspelling due to the confusion with the term 'reign' that refers generally to the power of a monarch.

(I would have let this go unremarked upon except that Steve believes so strongly in correcting others publicly when they fall below his standards and I know he would want his mistakes corrected in the same way to enable his quest for personal perfection.)


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 18, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Accordingly, they have free reign to opine as they do,
> ...



Hey, look at the big brain on Traveller!

It should come as no small surprise that you were unable to find fault with the spirit of what I said.

We're photographers. Those who are hobbiests have the luxury of being able to sit back and pretend that they know what is good and what is not, and that's fine.

Those of us who pay the bills with our cameras shouldn't be wasting time "educating" anyone...


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 18, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Accordingly, they have free reign to opine as they do,
> ...



:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:! At least he didn't use the short form of precipitation, like many do! But yes... somewhat hilarious!  lol!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 18, 2013)

In a society where Honey Boo Boo was a successful TV show, this is really a silly discussion! Poor taste wins every time...


----------



## Designer (Sep 18, 2013)

JacaRanda said:


> Designer, I am trying to work something out between the word educate vs. the word influence.



I think you can influence someone without actually educating them.  

In fact; perhaps for some purposes, you really don't want to educate them.


----------



## Designer (Sep 18, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Those of us who pay the bills with our cameras shouldn't be wasting time "educating" anyone...



As I said, it is nearly impossible, so no, you shouldn't waste your time.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 18, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Hey, look at the big brain on Traveller!
> 
> It should come as no small surprise that you were unable to find fault with the spirit of what I said.
> 
> ...



TBH, I haven't paid any attention to the content of what you write but as I look back it seems that you are trying to say that somehow the guy who drives a bulldozer every day should be the generally acclaimed expert on the beauties of architecture. That doesn't make much sense to me but if that's what you need to believe, go ahead.

The spirit in which you reply is constantly obvious but, if you leave me alone, I won't spell it out.


----------



## Overread (Sep 18, 2013)

One warning to all to get back on topic and drop the snide remarks at each other. You don't want us mods to lock threads? Then learn to deal with each others differences and have debates about the topic of photography without the need to snipe at each other or at various groupings of people as a whole.


----------



## snerd (Sep 18, 2013)

I think the media drives what is popular or not. And they target our basest desires and inclinations, since those are the easiest to manipulate. But hey, I like the dogs playing poker!!


----------



## skieur (Sep 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> This is relevant to all art forms but we will focus on photography.
> 
> So as most regulars on here will agree that overused filter packs and PS actions ruin a photo. But contrary to folks here 99% of the population loves it and buys it in droves. Most wedding photos I see have some sort to similar effect.
> 
> So are we wrong? If it is so bad than why is it so popular? Who is to say what is bad or good?



You are somewhat wrong.  The rule that I learned in both photography and television production for special effects, filters etc. was that if their use contributed to the effectiveness of the overall image or scene and they did not visually distract from the viewer's attention to the centre of interest, then their use was appropriate.

A further issue was what might be called "use or abuse".  If the viewer is not sure whether the effect is natural or PS, then the editor did a good job and the use was appropriate.  If on the other hand, the image screams PS to such an extent that the effect  distracts from the centre of interest then it would fit under "abuse".


----------



## skieur (Sep 18, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Why were jeans worn so low that you could see the guy's underwear popular? There's no accounting for taste!  Seriously though, I think there are a couple of reasons. First, because our customers are generally not very artistically educated, and they think that something looks good because it's new & unusual. If they see the funky PS action'd image next to a well shot, well lit image, I'm guessing that they'll probably go with the latter, and second because it's trendy and people are sheep.



Yes, the Instamatic mentality has been around for a very long period of time.
1. If the image is viewable, it is good.
2. If it is sharp and in focus, it is very good.
3. If it is properly exposed, it is excellent.
4. Unusual effects are the supposed icing on the cake, since they attract the viewer's attention.

Artistic composition is too often forgotten when some viewers look at images, even a few who have an artistic sense but don't apply it to photos.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2013)

kitsch...an interesrting part of the definition in this Wikipedia entry (Kitsch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) was of some intererest to me, in regard to cheezy actions and so on. Specifically, this passage: "According to Walter Benjamin, kitsch is, unlike art, a utilitarian object lacking all critical distance between object and observer; it "offers instantaneous emotional gratification without intellectual effort, without the requirement of distance, without sublimation".[SUP][4][/SUP][h=2]Study and background[edit source | editbeta][/h]The study of kitsch was done almost exclusively in German until the 1970s, with Walter Benjamin being an important scholar in the field.[SUP][4
[/SUP]


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> kitsch...an interesrting part of the definition in this Wikipedia entry (Kitsch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) was of some intererest to me, in regard to cheezy actions and so on. Specifically, this passage: "According to Walter Benjamin, kitsch is, unlike art, a utilitarian object lacking all critical distance between object and observer; it "offers instantaneous emotional gratification without intellectual effort, without the requirement of distance, without sublimation".[SUP][4][/SUP]*Study and background[edit source | editbeta]*
> 
> The study of kitsch was done almost exclusively in German until the 1970s, with Walter Benjamin being an important scholar in the field.[SUP][4
> [/SUP]



I think the original meaning has been warped a little bit by time. 
Originally I think the concept was that all the mysteries of the art had been predigested, all laid out easily for the public to understand - hence the 'distance' reference.
Now kitsch seems more to apply to overly sweet, simplistic work with loud colors and design excess. Hummel figures, for example - no mystery, they are what they are.

Luckily that sort of stuff breaks easily when dropped, although if your floors are carpeted, it may be necessary to hold it overhead before releasing.


----------



## limr (Sep 18, 2013)

Okay, I'm going to throw my hat in.

I believe one aspect that has not been mentioned in this discussion is the idea of accessibility. What are people comfortable with? What do they understand and relate to? How willing are they to challenge themselves?

I think the reason people are called 'sheep' (or the pithy portmanteau 'sheeple') is because most people prefer to be comfortable. Those of us taking part in the discussion might be willing to push ourselves in photography, but I'd put money on the fact that there are other aspects of our lives that we say are perfectly fine! No challenges needed! Nothing wrong with the way things are, thankyouverymuch and good day! Face it, we're all sheeple at some point in our lives.

The alcohol metaphor has been brought up so let's look at that one. At first, someone tries beer and reacts to a taste. They find something they like. Goes down smooth, tastes nice and uncomplicated and doesn't need any more thought. Done and done. I mean, look at the crappy beer we drank in college. Pabst Blue Ribbon??? Most people won't ever really move past this because it's just not important to them and so they'll happily drink Bud for the rest of their lives.  Some, though, will decide to try different beers because if they like one, maybe they'll like others. They're interested in learning more, and so they do. Their palate gets more sophisticated and they can detect subtle nuances and difference that they couldn't before. When they go back to Bud one day, perhaps they spit it out in horror wondering why they ever liked it. Suddenly, they are able to understand differences between 'good' and 'bad' and they call the Bud drinkers 'sheeple'. Meanwhile, all the other people who are content with their first beer loves are buying it in droves and driving the market and demand. So something that may be considered 'bad' is also very very popular. (Yes, I'm calling Bud 'bad beer'. Sorry if I offend the Bud drinkers, but, well, that's how it goes.)

It could be said for literature. Shakespeare wrote plays to appeal to the masses and they were widely popular. Although his plays revolve around universal, timeless themes, the _form_ of his work has become less and less accessible to people. It challenges them and unless language and literature is important to them, why bother reading anything but Dan Brown or Jodi Picoult or that horrifying book _The Help_, or any other book or author on the NYT Best Seller list? Now Shakespeare plays have become something that only 'snooty high-brow' people enjoy. But those of us who appreciate some forms of literature over the popular best-sellers might be able to see something in those works that most people don't because they just don't care enough to make themselves uncomfortable while working to understand it. Some of us have chosen that challenge for ourselves and so now our concept of "accessible" is different from someone else's who has chosen different challenges for themselves.

So you have little groups of people in various fields who are willing to put themselves out of their comfort zone to learn more about something that is important to them, and learn to see differences between work that shows talent and skill and innovation, and work that might be appealing to the 'uneducated' but which actually isn't good. Meanwhile, the rest of the people are content with what they know, what they already like, or what they are told to like (media, market forces, other similarly comfort-seeking friends...). So a skilled photographer might be a philistine when it comes to beer or literature, or a skilled pianist loves the predictable and ubiquitous Instagram filters, or the oenophile loves Danielle Steele. There's only so much discomfort we can handle, after all.

You _can_ educate someone, but not until their minds are open to the idea that they even need any education.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2013)

Overhead while standing before great works of art in a museum in any American city, a guy who proclaims, "_I don't know much about art, but I know what I like._" 

Or, "This is *art?* My kid could crap out a painting this good!"

As The_Traveler mentioned, apparently some people believe that bulldozer drivers' opinions about architecture ought to hold considerable sway. As in the examples overhead at American museums, apparently there are some people who firmly maintain that the opinions of people who self-profess ignorance and lack of knowledge are the only opinions that count.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 18, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> TBH, I haven't paid any attention to the content of what you write but as I look back it seems that you are trying to say that somehow the guy who drives a bulldozer every day should be the generally acclaimed expert on the beauties of architecture.



That makes absolutely no sense at all, and it's not remotely similar to what I said...


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 18, 2013)

skieur said:


> A further issue was what might be called "use or abuse". If the viewer is not sure whether the effect is natural or PS, then the editor did a good job and the use was appropriate. If on the other hand, the image screams PS to such an extent that the effect distracts from the centre of interest then it would fit under "abuse".



You're talking about two different things. On the one hand, you talk about the processing not being obvious. On the other, you talk about it distracting from the image. What if i's obvious, but doesn't "distract"?

What if someone looks at an obviously heavily processed image and likes what he sees? The processing, to that individual, may not distract from the image at all...


----------



## Designer (Sep 18, 2013)

limr said:


> ..They're interested in learning more, and so they do. Their palate gets more sophisticated and they can detect subtle nuances and difference that they couldn't before.



Aye, those are the people who choose to become better educated about certain things.  

Your beer analogy has made me blush.  I have found my beer: Samuel Adams Boston Lager.  Not that I don't try others, but I am quite satisfied with that one.  My two sons make fun of me for it.  They are in competition with each other in trying to get more badges than the other for trying many different beers.  Occasionally I am with one of them who offers me some strange new brew which I don't really like.  Does that make me a beer luddite?


----------



## Designer (Sep 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> ..Or, "This is *art?* My kid could crap out a painting this good!"



I've seen plenty of examples of poorly-conceived and executed "art" about which the "artist" has proclaimed to be the best thing this side of heaven.  A lot of an artist's success (or lack thereof) hinges on his persona.  So the marketing aspect of selling bad art is very important.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 18, 2013)

limr said:


> You _can_ educate someone, but not until their open to the idea that they even need any education.



The question that needs to be asked isn't so much "_Can _we educate someone" but, rather, "Why _should _we?"

Do we have some responsibility to make sure neophytes get on board with what we believe constitutes "good" and "bad"?

I don't believe we do. 

I've taken some photos that, personally, I thought were pretty horrible. Those same images have sold, though, because they fit someone else's definition of what was "good". 

If someone looks at something I think is bad, and they decide it's good and writes a check for a print, well, I'm not about to argue with them...


----------



## limr (Sep 18, 2013)

Designer said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > ..They're interested in learning more, and so they do. Their palate gets more sophisticated and they can detect subtle nuances and difference that they couldn't before.
> ...



First, tell them if they are only trying beer to one-up each other, then they're just poseurs 

I was going to claim that the bottle/can line was the benchmark to determine luddite states, so you'd be safe, but apparently Sam Adams started putting their Boston Lager in cans earlier this year. Who knew? I might have to redraw the line. Though in this case, it might be a moot point. The fact that you are willing to try new beers (but simply conclude that they're not as good as your favorite) proves you're no luddite, so no worries there


----------



## limr (Sep 18, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > You _can_ educate someone, but not until their open to the idea that they even need any education.
> ...



Of course we have an obligation to encourage people to learn more, to be educated, to be able to have an open mind and be receptive to the knowledge and experience of someone who knows more about a subject.

This is not the same as forcing someone to agree with you. If you don't want to even make the attempt and just do whatever the hell the client wants just as long as you get paid, that is all well and good for you. But I couldn't work that way. I couldn't do work I didn't believe in just because it's popular; it's just feeding the beast. This would surely lose me clients, but I'd rather lose clients than sleep.

But this is why I'm not even trying to pay my bills with photography. And of course, this probably means you will likely dismiss my opinion.

I don't care about that, either. I like to believe that any small effort in raising the bar is worth it, because who wouldn't want to live in a world that is just a little bit more knowledgeable, more educated?

And this is why I make my living in front of a classroom.


----------



## bratkinson (Sep 19, 2013)

Perhaps we should all blame George Eastman and Edwin Land for 'easy to use' photography. They brought the difficult to accomplish task of photography to the masses with simple point and shoot boxes. No more tripods, tents, bulky film holders, etc. Simply load the film, aim the camera, and push the button. 

Take away the film from the previous statement, and presto-chango! There's todays' point and shoot! Or "A" mode on a 'big expensive camera'....or a cellphone or tablet. It's quick, it's free on your phone/tablet or reasonably cheap on the P&S, and there are very few these days who do NOT have a camera in phone/tablet/point and shoot. Let's see...I can sell 20 BILLION cell phones with (free) cameras in 10 years, or 30 million DSLRs with cheap lenses and perhaps 15 million high end DSLRs with high end glass in the same 10 years. Who makes the most money? 

Bottom line, cheap sells...big time! Quick and easy does, too. So take a relatively inexperienced photographer, a mid-range camera kit with 1 or 2 kit lenses, and through the magic of "A" and simple, pre-determined post processing clicks, churn out 150-200 'slick-looking' wedding photographs with less than 8 hours total time and put $300-500 in their pocket...that the IRS will likely never hear about. 

Why not? The wedding couple is happy, and the photographer has enough money for an extravagent Ernest & Julio Gallo party!

Perhaps we should adopt the mantra of 'we shall not make any photograph until it's time' snobbish attitude (how many remember that snobby wine commercial?).  In other words, one must first go to photography school and graduate with a 3.5 or better average, intern for 2 years, second shooter for 5 years, THEN hang out a shingle announcing you are a wedding photographer.  Maybe we ARE snobs since WE have the big, expensive-looking (and some are) DSLRs with multiple lenses and fancy-smanchy light stands and battery packs and ....


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 19, 2013)

limr said:


> Of course we have an obligation to encourage people to learn more, to be educated, to be able to have an open mind and be receptive to the knowledge and experience of someone who knows more about a subject.



That doesn't address the question of "Why?"



> This is not the same as forcing someone to agree with you. If you don't want to even make the attempt and just do whatever the hell the client wants just as long as you get paid, that is all well and good for you. But I couldn't work that way. I couldn't do work I didn't believe in just because it's popular; it's just feeding the beast.



I'm far more concerned with being able to feed me and mine. If not feeding the beast means I don't make a living, well, I hope that beast is hungry.

If I'm hired to shoot for a client, what the client wants is paramount. Period. I will certainly make suggestions if I think it's appropriate but, yeah, what I think is "good" takes a back seat to what the client thinks is "good".

And I'll eat well...



> This would surely lose me clients, but I'd rather lose clients than sleep.
> 
> But this is why I'm not even trying to pay my bills with photography. And of course, this probably means you will likely dismiss my opinion.



Pretty much, yeah. A someone who's not making a living with his camera, you have the luxury of viewing photography, as a business, through very idealistic glasses, and those glasses don't often offer a very realistic view...



> I don't care about that, either. I like to believe that any small effort in raising the bar is worth it, because who wouldn't want to live in a world that is just a little bit more knowledgeable, more educated?



I guess my question is this: What qualifies you to "raise the bar"?

Would you expect a professional chauffer to "educate" you on how you should drive a car?
And this is why I make my living in front of a classroom.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 19, 2013)

bratkinson said:


> Bottom line, cheap sells...big time! Quick and easy does, too. So take a relatively inexperienced photographer, a mid-range camera kit with 1 or 2 kit lenses, and through the magic of "A" and simple, pre-determined post processing clicks, churn out 150-200 'slick-looking' wedding photographs with less than 8 hours total time and put $300-500 in their pocket...that the IRS will likely never hear about.



So if the couple is happy with what the photographer has provided, and if the photographer is happy with what he's been paid, how is that bad?



> Perhaps we should adopt the mantra of 'we shall not make any photograph until it's time' snobbish attitude (how many remember that snobby wine commercial?). In other words, one must first go to photography school and graduate with a 3.5 or better average, intern for 2 years, second shooter for 5 years, THEN hang out a shingle announcing you are a wedding photographer. Maybe we ARE snobs since WE have the big, expensive-looking (and some are) DSLRs with multiple lenses and fancy-smanchy light stands and battery packs and ....



My experience here on TPF is that there's no shortage of "snobs".

The suggestion that someone should go to school before working as a professional photographer has been batted around here in the past. Essentially, at the end of the day, "photography" is an art form and as such is largely subjective. You might as well suggest that someone go to art school before they're allowed to sell an oil painting...


----------



## amolitor (Sep 19, 2013)

You use the word "realistic" as if you think your view of photography is somehow better than other people's.

Photography is many things, If you're concerned with making a living at it, then you certainly will view it as a commercial enterprise, and will take a certain attitude about what's good. To dismiss other views is silly, though. Photography is what it is, there are no right or wrong answers without context:

In the context of commercial work, there are certain right answers and certain wrong ones, and a bunch of other stuff.
In the context of fine art, the answers are all the same, but which ones are right and which ones are wrong is pretty much reversed.
In the context of recording ones life, where to 100% of photography takes places (to a good approximation) the right/wrong answers are again re-arranged.

Making sweeping statements about how your point of view is the only legitimate one, is silly. Free your mind, etc.

ETA: Steve5D, your signature line is amusing in the context of your rather hard-headed and one might even say "practical" remarks.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 19, 2013)

amolitor said:


> You use the word "realistic" as if you think your view of photography is somehow better than other people's.



No I don't.

There are two ways to view it: realistically and idealistically. The idealistic view will held, far more often than not, by the person who's not paying his bills with his camera, for the simple reason that he has the luxury of being able to do that. That's fine, but it doesn't negate an alternative view...



> Photography is many things, If you're concerned with making a living at it, then you certainly will view it as a commercial enterprise, and will take a certain attitude about what's good. To dismiss other views is silly, though. Photography is what it is, there are no right or wrong answers without context:



That's my point, too. I put it into context, though, with those who earn a living and those who don't. I think it's a bit presumptuous for someone who _doesn't _earn a living with their camera to suggest to someone who does how they should do it, or what should be important.   



> In the context of commercial work, there are certain right answers and certain wrong ones, and a bunch of other stuff.



Agreed...



> In the context of fine art, the answers are all the same, but which ones are right and which ones are wrong is pretty much reversed.



But they're not. There are no "wrong" or "right" answers. That's the very nature of a subjective art form...



> In the context of recording ones life, where to 100% of photography takes places (to a good approximation) the right/wrong answers are again re-arranged.



Again, those "answers" are subjective... 



> Making sweeping statements about how your point of view is the only legitimate one, is silly.



But with regards to my business, my point of view is paramount. Why should I be concerned with the opinion of someone, who isn't burdened with needing to earn a living with his camera, regarding the operation of my business?

I'm not dismissing anything. What I'm doing is simply prioritizing the expressed points of view. With regards to my business, my opinion is what matters most. Any working photographer will hold the same view...

[qute]ETA: Steve5D, your signature line is amusing in the context of your rather hard-headed and one might even say "practical" remarks.[/QUOTE]

With regards to making my living, yeah, practicality rules. Anything else is irresponsible...


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 19, 2013)

I believe it is the massive proliferation of "Amateur" PRO's and MWACS that are responsible for many of the questionable changes that have occurred, in what is considered acceptable for photography. When you flood the market with bad photography... the uninitiated, uneducated (photographically) public will soon change their concepts of what is GOOD, based on the type of the majority of photographs they are seeing (and then they go buy a camera and turn Instant-PRO)!

With Facebook, Flickr, Photobucket, etc.. and Low-end pro sessions being a large part of the public's primary access to photography... they see what is produced, by photographers with no formal training, little skill, low-end equipment... and that seem to be too lazy to flip the camera to a vertical format.

No one seems to want to do photography for a hobby, for pleasure anymore. Now it is a Hobby they want to make money with... even though most are just joining that massive crowd of Amateur PRO's and turning out the same crap they do. How many here have announced an intention to hang a shingle... when even 6 months ago, they were having REAL issues with even the very basics (and no experience with lighting, posing, etc)? And yet these are the photographers that post / shoot for the public!

When you cover a market heavily, especially at low prices...  you create your own market! Look at McDonalds... it is barely edible IMO, and poor quality food! But ask the majority if they want to go get a burger... and that is the first place that comes up (especially with the marketing to children... get 'em young... they will be slaves for life). So now we have a McDonalds style market for photography.... BIG MAC anyone?


----------



## Bulb (Sep 19, 2013)

I prefer to think of things using the 'junk food' model.

That is, things can (usually) be separated into two categories: gourmet meal or junk food.

Gourmet meals are difficult to prepare. They require more rigorous planning and execution to create. They require a bit of work on your part to notice the subtle nuances in the food. They usually leave you a little bit hungry for more, or at least they don't overfill you to the point where you can barely walk.

Gourmet meals are meticulously-planned and executed photographs meant to make you peer deeper into them. They're the Casablancas, Mona Lisas, classical statues of Greek gods, and so on.

Junk food is entirely different. It's easy to prepare, follows a set formula and presentation, is cheap to reproduce, and is generally easy and cheap enough to feed the population when they're hungry. It has all of the components that people want, with no surprises added. It's easy to go to the store and buy a bag of chips when you're craving them, or to stop by McDonalds to fill up during a long trip.

Junk food is art for everybody. It's meant to appeal to a base set of human traits (narcissism, greed, curiosity, novelty, etc.) without having to look for any deeper meaning. It's your Instagram food pictures, reality TV, movies that have more explosions than dialogue, and music where the lyrics can only be taken at face value.

Of course, to say that you can easily fit everything squarely into one or the other category is incorrect. It isn't all caviar and pork rinds. Some of the best works in history became the classics that they are by appealing to both groups to a certain extent.


----------



## mishele (Sep 19, 2013)

Now I want a sausage, egg and cheese McMuffin. Thanks a lot, Charlie!!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 19, 2013)

mishele said:


> Now I want a sausage, egg and cheese McMuffin. Thanks a lot, Charlie!!



Damn.. and I thought you were a classy gal! Disillusioned again!    

(btw.. I have noticed your avatars are getting rather shocking, violent, even distasteful! What is UP with that!  lol!)


----------



## mishele (Sep 19, 2013)

Charlie, I slum it every now and again. See you tonight? :greenpbl:


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 19, 2013)

mishele said:


> Charlie, I slum it every now and again. See you tonight? :greenpbl:



SHHHH... don't let anyone know! Sure... and bring the peanut butter! That was awesome last time!


----------



## amolitor (Sep 19, 2013)

It's also simply untrue that "popular = bad".

Prince is insanely popular, and is also one of the best musicians working today in several important dimensions.
Ansel Adams was, and remains, quite popular, and again was one of the best in several important dimensions.
Monet is insanely popular. There are days when I think half the reproductions made are Monet, and the other half are Adams.

(yes yes, it's also rather popular to dislike these people. If you want to tell me how crappy these artists are, please be ready to articulate _precisely why_ you think they are crappy. There will be a test, and the results will go on your permanent record)

You have to consider the uses people put these things to. Justin Bieber is infectious, catchy, entertaining. Also pretty disposable. So what? Not every meal has to have truffle shavings on it. The Dogs Playing Poker is funny. You don't always want some damned fine art in your den, sometimes you just want something that makes you giggle after a couple drinks. Dogs Playing Poker, and similar, actually benefit by being icons of kitsch -- you don't even really have to look at it, you recognize it instantly, your brain fills in the rest, and you grin.

Snapshots serve a role as a memory of something. Nobody actually cares if grandma's nose is on a Power Point, or if the shadows are blocked up. That's irrelevant, what matters is the cascade of memory which occurs when you see the picture.

Wedding photographs are basically the same damned thing all over again, but with different people (me and my bride!) and serve yet another purpose. They're think pieces, they're not just witty, or just decorative. They have an iconic look, which helps everyone instantly identify them as what they are, _and_ they serve a snapshot-like role of momento, of reminder, and yet they need to be decorative since they will be displayed.

Fine art is another thing again, and it also serves a role. Usually it should be decorative to an extent, but if you're doing it right it serves as a point of contemplation, something to look at and think about. Sometimes it also serves the purpose of displaying your wealth.

Lots of roles for pictures, and pictures in each role are going to have different properties, and we're going to react to them differently, _and this is all intentional, by design_.

The world would be boring as hell if it was all Leonard Cohen, no Britney Spears, I say. I want both of them, and a bit of Bach as well.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> I'm not dismissing anything. What I'm doing is simply prioritizing the expressed points of view. With regards to my business, my opinion is what matters most. Any working photographer will hold the same view...



Fair enough, I'll take your word for it. I misread your tone. As one curmudgeon to another, I have to admit that it'll happen from time to time.


----------



## limr (Sep 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Of course we have an obligation to encourage people to learn more, to be educated, to be able to have an open mind and be receptive to the knowledge and experience of someone who knows more about a subject.
> ...



You're clearly only reading superficially and with the intent to prove how wrong I am. Given how I'm apparently not allowed to have an opinion, I'm not wasting any more time addressing your insults. Have a nice day.



> Junk food is art for everybody. It's meant to appeal to a base set of human traits (narcissism, greed, curiosity, novelty, etc.) without having to look for any deeper meaning. It's your Instagram food pictures, reality TV, movies that have more explosions than dialogue, and music where the lyrics can only be taken at face value.
> 
> Of course, to say that you can easily fit everything squarely into one or the other category is incorrect. It isn't all caviar and pork rinds. Some of the best works in history became the classics that they are by appealing to both groups to a certain extent.



Exactly. It's their comfort zone. People don't want to think too hard about the stuff they like. These things are accessible to everyone. And now, as bratkinson and cgipson have mentioned, people aren't just _consuming_ these pictures, but _producing_ them as well. 



> No one seems to want to do photography for a hobby, for pleasure anymore. Now it is a Hobby they want to make money with... even though most are just joining that massive crowd of Amateur PRO's and turning out the same crap they do.



FWIW, I have no intention of hanging a shingle.  If someone wants to pay me for a picture I've made, I certainly won't say no, but my services are not for hire.


----------



## IByte (Sep 19, 2013)

mishele said:


> Now I want a sausage, egg and cheese McMuffin. Thanks a lot, Charlie!!



Has browns where are the hash brown with OJ!! >. <


----------



## KenC (Sep 19, 2013)

limr said:


> Of course we have an obligation to encourage people to learn more, to be educated, to be able to have an open mind and be receptive to the knowledge and experience of someone who knows more about a subject.



What is the source of this obligation?  You mentioned that you teach, so of course in the context of the classroom, you have such an obligation.  However, in the world at large, why is every individual obligated to wear themselves out trying to teach people who don't want to be taught and/or have no notion that there is anything that would be worth learning?  I am happy to discuss something I know with anyone who expresses an interest, but I don't try to convince someone that they should have this interest.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 19, 2013)

I think it is completely false to say that people don't recognize good art. A strong argument can be made that if it's not accessible to the "man on the street" then it isn't good art at all. Average Joe might not like a piece, might not get all the complexity and all the referents, sure. Good art has layers.

Still, if a piece is just a meaningless jumble to an Average Joe who takes a little time to look at it, the piece isn't very good. It isn't communicating with humanity in any general way. If it communicates at all, then, it communicates with a small "in the know" group, and is pretty much just a coded message between those people, which frankly isn't that interesting.

I am cheerfully setting aside things like cultural differences. What is meaningful to a japanese Average Joe and an american Average Joe will be different. Arguably the "in the know" group is just another culture, but my claim is essentially that it's small and self-manufactured, and therefore irrelevant.

This doesn't mean there's not quite a bit of bad art out there. But do keep in mind that the fact that you, or Average Joe, doesn't _like_ it doesn't mean that it's _bad._

Anyways. I think this stuff about how we need to "educate" people until they like what we like is elitist fiddle-faddle. If people don't like what you're making, either accept that, or start making something better.


----------



## limr (Sep 19, 2013)

KenC said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Of course we have an obligation to encourage people to learn more, to be educated, to be able to have an open mind and be receptive to the knowledge and experience of someone who knows more about a subject.
> ...



I never said we had to 'wear ourselves out'. In a previous post, I said that you can educate people but only when they are ready to learn. They have to first be willing to admit that they don't actually know something and then have an open enough mind to learn. That's actually not a lot of people. But what is the risk in at least attempting to see who you're dealing with? 

If you make the attempt and it's met with a closed mind, then move on. If you actually get someone who wants to learn something, then you have the chance to make them more informed about whatever you are teaching them.

I personally want to live in a world with fewer stupid people. I think it makes the world better. Isn't that a good enough reason to at least try?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 19, 2013)

limr said:


> I personally want to live in a world with fewer stupid people. I think it makes the world better. Isn't that a good enough reason to at least try?



Yes to all of this! Unfortunately, stupidity seems to be a common lifestyle choice!


----------



## limr (Sep 19, 2013)

> Anyways. I think this stuff about how we need to "educate" people until they like what we like is elitist fiddle-faddle. If people don't like what you're making, either accept that, or start making something better.



I don't know about anyone else, but I did not mean to imply that 'educating' people meant forcing them to like the same things we like. Nor do I think it elitist if someone knows more about the subject and tries to offer information to someone else to help them think about things differently. (And I was also not including only photography in this idea.)

I've seen far too many people dismiss a movie, photograph, novel, painting, song...you name it...because they "just don't get it." And many people don't really _want_ to 'get it' and some people do. 

Yes - things aren't inherently bad simply because they're popular, but that doesn't mean they are good, either. Something can be amusing or funny or catchy, but still be really crappy.


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 19, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Now kitsch seems more to apply to overly sweet, simplistic work with loud colors and design excess. Hummel figures, for example - no mystery, they are what they are.
> 
> *Luckily that sort of stuff breaks easily when dropped, although if your floors are carpeted, it may be necessary to hold it overhead before releasing.*



Best thing I've read in a while.  lol


----------



## Designer (Sep 19, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I think it is completely false to say that people don't recognize good art. A strong argument can be made that if it's not accessible to the "man on the street" then it isn't good art at all. Average Joe might not like a piece, might not get all the complexity and all the referents, sure. Good art has layers.
> 
> Still, if a piece is just a meaningless jumble to an Average Joe who takes a little time to look at it, the piece isn't very good. It isn't communicating with humanity in any general way. If it communicates at all, then, it communicates with a small "in the know" group, and is pretty much just a coded message between those people, which frankly isn't that interesting.
> 
> ...



Considering the many times that I have agreed with you about other things, I find your present argument puzzling.  I thought we were co-curmudgeons.  

You seem to have added words to my earlier post.  I don't say we have to educate people until they like what we like.  I have seen good art that I don't particularly resonate with, but at least I still recognize it as good art.  

I also maintain that there is good vs. bad art.  I seldom take somebody's recommendation for anything, including art, restaurants, writing, or anything else.  

Adding that my definition of art is some construct that elicits an emotion or reaction in the viewer.  So yes, even bad art can elicit a reaction.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 19, 2013)

I was addressing more what I see as a general tenor of the discussion than any specific post!

Having thought about this for a while, I have actually concluded that if it elicits a reaction, it is good art. You might like it or not, but if it elicits a reaction it's successful. If the reaction is superficial, perhaps it's not _particularly_ good art. It's not clear to me how else to differentiate between good and bad, you see?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 19, 2013)

amolitor, I read your thoughts in post #62, and had to say, I disagree quite strongly with most everything you wrote. The idea that the reactions of the "average Joe" determine the worth, or value,or the success, of artistic endeavors is a pretty feeble position to defend. The idea that "accessibility" by those unfamiliar with artistic works is a viable way to measure artistic value of such works is, well, ludicrous. MUCH of the more-important artistic production of high-level artists is dismissed by the masses. You are trying to apply kitsch standards, or popular art standards, to higher-level works. The typical "average Joe" catwegorizes Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms as "classical crap," and would rather listen to The Black Eyed Peas or Carly Jepsen's catchy "Call Me Maybe". There are "average Joe" types who read at the eighth grade level; most of them would not bother with a Pulitzer prize-winning novel, and would instead more-favorably evaluate a good "graphic novel". (What we used to call *a comic book*.)

The idea that reaching a wide, uneducated audience, the "average Joe", is the way one measures artistic value, and artistic success is, again...sorry to pull this word out, but the word is "ludicrous". The accessible McDonald's quarter pounder with cheese must be the ne plus ultra of the culinary arts, by your way of looking at things; accessible in every way: ubiquitous, low-priced, quick, and easy to wolf down.

An episode of Jersey Shore must also be more entertaining than say, a boring old play like Hamlet; I mean, crap, Jersey Shore comes on FREE TV, whereas with Hamlet and all that old other dusty crap, you have to leave the house and go sit quietly,PAY to watch it, and they MAKE you put away and turn off your cellphone in the theatre! Who needs that high-brow nuttiness? Gimme my Jersey Shore!


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 19, 2013)

I just use the Justin Bieber argument.

Justin Bieber is REALLY popular, but does his talent correlate to his popularity? Or, another question, because he's popular, does that mean he's really good, or are there other factors that play into it?

Yes, people LOVE to use filters, but is it because those filters look nice or is it because they look at their photos, and because of their lack of posing/lighting/composing expertise, say "These photo just don't pop. I guess I'll have to MAKE them good photos." This isn't accounting to those professionals who do use filters, but I can kind of understand where they're coming from too if they have an already good photo and decide that they like the aesthetics of VSCO filters. It's just personal taste at that point.

But even if everyone seems to love filters, I also look at those who are actually praised by the public and photographers alike. Steve McCurry, Joe McNally, and the like aren't fad-ish with their processing, and they don't seem to be doing too badly.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 19, 2013)

Derrel said:


> "No one ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the American public," is a famous quotation attributed to H.L. Mencken. I think we all know what he meant. Look at what is "popular" these days...trashy, low-brow "reality television" shows; Justin Bieber sold more records a couple of years ago than virtually ANY 'serious' artist managed to sell....Ernest & Julio Gallo sell more wine than any other winemaker in the USA...what is "popular" is simply put, what the large masses of people happen to think is..."good". Snooki is a bigger *star* than Meryl Streep--at least today. Yes, it really is a matter of "taste"...Ernest & Julio Gallo's one-gallon $12.99 jugs of California chablis would be laughed out of any serious wine tasting, but hey...it's affordable,there's a LOT in the jug, AND it gets you drunk...so...



We are getting loads of your **** TV over here House Wives of Blah Blah but hell the Atlanta wives are rough


----------



## limr (Sep 19, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I was addressing more what I see as a general tenor of the discussion than any specific post!
> 
> Having thought about this for a while, I have actually concluded that if it elicits a reaction, it is good art. You might like it or not, but if it elicits a reaction it's successful. If the reaction is superficial, perhaps it's not _particularly_ good art. It's not clear to me how else to differentiate between good and bad, you see?



Oh, it's a slippery fish, isn't it?

I think about a performer like Lady Gaga. I don't like her music or her whole persona. She is certainly eliciting a reaction from me. Does that mean that she's good, even though I have a negative reaction? I don't know. She's good at _something_ but I'm not entirely sure that something is music. She seems to be talented and has a decent enough voice to not offend most sensibilities. Perhaps what bothers me is that she's praised as a musician when her real talent probably lies in spectacle, not music. But she's still getting credit for what I would consider mediocre quality music. Why?

Perhaps the comparison, though, is something that helps us determine more objective standards for subjective reactions. She's got a 'decent enough voice' on its own, but compare it to Pavarotti's? She sounds like an alley cat in heat. But again, this is subjective. What criteria am I using to judge the two, either on his/her own or in comparison? Technical merit? Quality? Power?

Is there any objective 'good' or 'bad' without comparison?

Slippery, slippery, slippery.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 19, 2013)

Derrel, I thought I made it clear, but let's have another go at it:

Average Joe might not *like* Bach, but recognizes that there's something there. If Average Joe can be persuaded to listen to a couple minutes, at any rate, I will warrant that more times than not Average Joe will say "well, not my cup of tea but I guess it's something" and that is precisely the metric I am using here.

- If AJ cannot be persuaded to listen to it, we learn nothing, find another AJ and try again
- If AJ *can* be persuaded to listen (or look, or touch) then:

  - - - if AJ simply finds it meaningless and confusing, we might be looking at some unsuccessful art
  - - - if AJ thinks there's something there -- regardless of whether AJ likes it or not -- we might be looking at successful art

Note 1: I use "successful" instead of "good" because good is a wildly broad term, often conflated with liking it.
Note 2: Art being intersubjective, one AJ is not actually enough, you need enough feedback to get a rough idea of hot "people in general" react

The point isn't that AJ likes it. The point is that AJ feels it, at least a little. If Average Joe can't feel it, what the hell is the point of it? It becomes irrelevant exclusive in-crowd junk.

Also, I think you're being ungenerous to Average Joe. AJ actually likes quite a bit of good stuff, just not enough to buy the CDs


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 19, 2013)

gsgary said:


> We are getting loads of your **** TV over here House Wives of Blah Blah but hell the Atlanta wives are rough



You say that as it we are pushing this stuff on an unknowing, unwary public. 
I've been to the UK and I realize that not exactly everyone sits up reading Evelyn Waugh while having a brandy by the fire.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 19, 2013)

Honestly, the UK gave us Benny Hill. There is no hole deep enough for that ****ing country to hide in.


----------



## limr (Sep 19, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > We are getting loads of your **** TV over here House Wives of Blah Blah but hell the Atlanta wives are rough
> ...



Hey, we get East Enders over on our side of the pond. Are we even?


----------



## gsgary (Sep 19, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > We are getting loads of your **** TV over here House Wives of Blah Blah but hell the Atlanta wives are rough
> ...



Most US travellers i see that come to the UK go to a Hell Hole called London and miss all the best parts, i'm in one of the nicest parts at the moment https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=s...05oDoDw&ved=0CF4QsAQ&biw=1067&bih=516&dpr=1.2 Where i used to live


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > You _can_ educate someone, but not until their open to the idea that they even need any education.
> ...



We might possibly have the responsibility to teach those who want to learn.  Or maybe it's only the right to teach them.

But the *desire *to teach those who aren't seeking to learn is generally less driven by any real responsibility and more driven by a need for self validation to shore up insecurities in one's beliefs tastes and opinions.


----------



## weepete (Sep 19, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Honestly, the UK gave us Benny Hill. There is no hole deep enough for that ****ing country to hide in.



The UK consists of 4 countries mate


----------



## amolitor (Sep 19, 2013)

weepete said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, the UK gave us Benny Hill. There is no hole deep enough for that ****ing country to hide in.
> ...



That's what they keep telling themselves


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> But the *desire *to teach those who aren't seeking to learn is generally less driven by any real responsibility and more driven by a need for self validation to shore up insecurities in one's beliefs tastes and opinions.



Right on point and a pretty ironic point it is, considering the general tenor of conversations here.


----------



## limr (Sep 19, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Derrel, I thought I made it clear, but let's have another go at it:
> 
> Average Joe might not *like* Bach, but recognizes that there's something there. If Average Joe can be persuaded to listen to a couple minutes, at any rate, I will warrant that more times than not Average Joe will say "well, not my cup of tea but I guess it's something" and that is precisely the metric I am using here.
> 
> ...



I get this argument, I really do. I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I do understand what you're saying. The part that makes me sigh and recoil a bit is the idea that most AJs recognize that something is good but are aware enough of their own tastes to understand that they don't like it.

I am fully aware that these sighs of mine may be due to a certain cynicism borne of experience and therefore may be unfair, but I can't help but remember all the AJs I've had in classes over the years who _don't_ recognize the talent or skill or quality and also _don't want to know._ It's not that they think, "Well, Hemingway was a great writer but I just don't like his style." My colleagues might say that, but my students don't. I hear, "I don't get it" or "It's boring" or "Why can't Shakespeare just write normal?" (I swear on a six-pack of bibles that this was an actual quote, not exaggeration for the sake of making a point.)

So I struggle with your idea that the Average Joe needs to be given more credit.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 19, 2013)

Are they reading Shakespeare? That is both common and also cruel&unusual punishment. Shakespeare is great, but has to be heard and watched. On paper, he's numbing and incomprehensible to everyone.

I'll certainly accept that there's art where getting the Average Joe to give it a chance is hard. Part of this is context (making them read Shakespeare) part of it is anti-training (for some reason schools which bother with Dickens always use Tale of Two Cities, which is hands-down the most difficult Dickens to read. But it's short!!) and part of it is just that some art's harder to "access".


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 19, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > But the *desire *to teach those who aren't seeking to learn is generally less driven by any real responsibility and more driven by a need for self validation to shore up insecurities in one's beliefs tastes and opinions.
> ...



The problem is mostly that we as people tend to apply reductionist filters to the world in order to get things to grok.

Some of us have fewer pixels than others, but the problem seems to be universal:  those with the lowest resolution (ie one pixel, monochrome, binary) tend to be the ones who argue the loudest, fight the hardest, to defend the status (black or white, on or off) of their single binary pixel.  Why?  _*Insecurity.*_

That status of Art is not a binary good or bad.  It is a continuum of from bad to good across several dimensions.  Is it accessible?  Is it provocative?  Is it aesthetically pleasing?  Is it popular?  Does it support a complex world view?  The list could go on and on.  And EACH of those dimensions isn't simple binary.

Good art doesn't have to be all things to all people.   Even masterpieces can't achieve that.  But good art should be something to someone.  And a masterpiece has to mean a lot to a lot of people.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 19, 2013)

amolitor, your logical skills seem very weak today.

If the average Joe cannot understand higher-level mathematics, then higher level mathematics is useless, irrelevant junk. Since the average Joe has weak mathematics skills, then higher level mathematics is useless crap. I am of course, using your own attempts at logical thought to illustrate how feeble your contentions in post #62 and subsequents posts actually are.

Dude...you're seemingly pretty uneducated about the goals of "art", and repeatedly keep trying to apply mass-appeal standards to things that have very,very high value culturally. Your denseness seems beyond normal today.

Popularity and accessibility are not the goals of fine art! A McDonald's quarter pounder with cheese is popular, and successful, but it is NOT a good representation of the culinary arts. Jersey Shore is NOT worthwhile drama. I think you'd benefit from taking adult continuing education fine arts and fine art history classes, because *you are repeatedly confusing the kitsch aesthetic with the goals of "fine art"*.

I threw in the mathematics example above to,hopefully, show you how ludicrous your "average Joe" line of thinking is.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 19, 2013)

limr said:


> You're clearly only reading superficially and with the intent to prove how wrong I am. Given how I'm apparently not allowed to have an opinion, I'm not wasting any more time addressing your insults. Have a nice day.



Huh? 

Please point out where I said you're not allowed to have an opinion. Go ahead; I'll wait...

Okay, so, now that you've failed to do that, you stated that we have an "obligation" to educate. My question to you was "Why?" Why do we have such an obligation? How is it incumbent on us to educate anyone of anything?

I was really hoping you'd answer that but, instead, you seem to want to tuck your tail between your legs and not explain your point.

That's another way to go, I guess...


----------



## limr (Sep 19, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Are they reading Shakespeare? That is both common and also cruel&unusual punishment. Shakespeare is great, but has to be heard and watched. On paper, he's numbing and incomprehensible to everyone.
> 
> I'll certainly accept that there's art where getting the Average Joe to give it a chance is hard. Part of this is context (making them read Shakespeare) part of it is anti-training (for some reason schools which bother with Dickens always use Tale of Two Cities, which is hands-down the most difficult Dickens to read. But it's short!!) and part of it is just that some art's harder to "access".



I actually don't have my students read Shakespeare. If I do his works in class, I show a movie. We'll only read certain excerpts so we can go through some of the challenges of the language and help them interpret better so they can follow the movie better. I totally agree, though, that his work is meant to be watched and heard, not read.

Many programs and individual teachers hold onto the 'classics' because that's what they know and are comfortable with. "We've always taught it and always will, and that's the way it should be!" I don't really ascribe to that. I do teach some 'typical' authors but not just because they are included in the traditional canon. I choose stories that will challenge in some way. I include Hemingway because of his command of the language and this can push students to think about words and meanings more carefully. I have also used Ayn Rand, even though I don't agree with many of her conclusions and think she was kind of bat-**** crazy and not a particularly good creative writer, but her work ("Anthem") certainly challenges students to think through their ideas and conclusions more thoroughly. I've also included...*gasp*...a graphic novel called "Persepolis" and not because it has pictures, but because it does a great job at taking students out of the little bubble of their own lives and gets them to see the world from a different perspective.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 19, 2013)

limr said:


> I never said we had to 'wear ourselves out'. In a previous post, I said that you can educate people but only when they are ready to learn.



But that's actually not what you said. You said we have an obligation to educate others. 

There's not too any different ways to say that you're wrong. You are. Such an obligation does not exist. That's not to say we can't do it, but an "obligation"?

Not even close...


----------



## amolitor (Sep 19, 2013)

Math isn't art. And, actually, a lot of higher level math is kind of useless irrelevant stuff, which is basically coded messages between an insanely small group of the elite, to no purpose whatsoever. I wrote a whole PhD these in coded language to about 5 other people, and the work will almost certainly never ever ever make the slightest difference in anyone's life.

I am certainly willing to stipulate that there's quite a bit of art being made today which IS essentially coded messages exchanged between members of a small elite group. A great deal of it exists in an environment specifically designed to be exclusive, it exists as "secret knowledge" which only the gallerists and collectors understand. It's not a clearly delineated subset, it's just one end of a spectrum, but at that end there is stuff being made which is clearly intended to be incomprehensible without the secret decoder ring.

I don't know if this is the work that you're referring to as having very very high cultural value. My position, though, is basically that as you depart from the land of comprehensible into the land of pretty universally incomprehensible, the cultural value drops to zero.

At the other end of the spectrum, where you have Hummel figurines and Velvet paintings, the cultural value is pretty darn low as well. I mean, it's interesting stuff insofar as it tells us about the ambient culture, but that's arguably a different thing.

The stuff in the middle, which is "good" but "popular", the Monets, the Adamses, the Mozarts? That's pretty high-value stuff. It pervades the ambient culture, and does a lot of that "elevating us" stuff that art's supposed to do. There's a lot of cultural heavy lifting done by this stuff. Prince probably fits in here too.


----------



## limr (Sep 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > You're clearly only reading superficially and with the intent to prove how wrong I am. Given how I'm apparently not allowed to have an opinion, I'm not wasting any more time addressing your insults. Have a nice day.
> ...



Nice try, but I'm not playing. Move on.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 19, 2013)

limr said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Now that is bad can't stand the program


----------



## gsgary (Sep 19, 2013)

weepete said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, the UK gave us Benny Hill. There is no hole deep enough for that ****ing country to hide in.
> ...



And Scotland will be in the **** if they get to go aloan


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> We might possibly have the responsibility to teach those who want to learn. Or maybe it's only the right to teach them.



I certainly don't believe we have that "right" at all. If someone wants to learn, that's great. If he wants me to teach him, I will, or maybe I won't. That's a choice which I alone will make. But I don't have the "right" to teach him anything...


----------



## Tiller (Sep 19, 2013)

The UK brought us Dr. Who so all is good with me


----------



## gsgary (Sep 19, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Honestly, the UK gave us Benny Hill. There is no hole deep enough for that ****ing country to hide in.



And also Monty Pyphon  and most of the best rock bands


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 19, 2013)

limr said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



There's nothing funnier than a person who belches out a post and then is to afraid to back up what he's said.

I'll help you out: The reason you're not answering "Why do we have that obligation?" is because you've apparently realized that we don't, and you're too afraid of being wrong.

We get it.

But, hey, I'm a reasonable guy. If I'm wrong, feel free to point out how...


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 19, 2013)

Am I the only one here finding it ironic that those who I consider to be the most reasonable members of the forum are the ones most locked up at loggerheads on this?  And they agree more than disagree.

At this point, it's just turned into an exercise in pedantics and you said, not I didn't, you said, bla bla.

If I buy the 5 of you a round of beer, will you go back to agreeing again?  lol


----------



## limr (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> If I buy the 5 of you a round of beer, will you go back to agreeing again?  lol



But will it be _good_&#8203; beer?


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 19, 2013)

limr said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > If I buy the 5 of you a round of beer, will you go back to agreeing again?  lol
> ...



The best Bud Light you can get in a can.


----------



## limr (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...



Awesome, I'm in!


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Am I the only one here finding it ironic that those who I consider to be the most reasonable members of the forum are the ones most locked up at loggerheads on this? And they agree more than disagree.
> 
> At this point, it's just turned into an exercise in pedantics and you said, not I didn't, you said, bla bla.
> 
> If I buy the 5 of you a round of beer, will you go back to agreeing again? lol



I'm just trying to find out why I have an obligation to do something. Furthermore, it's a bit surprising that asking that very question is proving to be such a curveball for the person who said it...


----------



## gsgary (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...



Thats never been good beer


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 19, 2013)

gsgary said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



In my single pixel reduction to the binary state of "beer" vs "no beer", "Bud Light in a can" reduces as "BEER".  It is therefore equivalent to the very best beer in the all the beer kingdom.

Does your filter reduce bud light in a can as "no beer"?


----------



## frommrstomommy (Sep 19, 2013)

This thread is making me cross eyed. I think for me the bottom line is to continue bettering my photography for ME, and not based entirely upon what the so called "masses" are doing.. because I don't think the overly done PS actions and such are pleasing to the eye. I've given up comparing myself to those kind of photographers long ago.


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> I'm just trying to find out why I have an obligation to do something.  Furthermore, it's a bit surprising that asking that very question is  proving to be such a curveball for the person who said it...



yah but sometimes ya just gotta shake yer head and walk away for the greater good of the relationship.


----------



## limr (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just trying to find out why I have an obligation to do something.  Furthermore, it's a bit surprising that asking that very question is  proving to be such a curveball for the person who said it...
> ...



Especially when further interaction accomplishes nothing.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...



I would rather drink tap water, i have been a member of CAMRA - Campaign for Real Ale for years

http://www.camra.org.uk/article.php?group_id=11205


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 19, 2013)

gsgary said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



A) you've just helped illustrate my point about reductionist thinking.  thank you.

and B) Now we have to fight about beer vs no beer.  Ready?


----------



## limr (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...



My filter settings depend on what kind of day I'm having.

Granted, it would honestly have to be a craptastically horrible, worst-day-EVER sort of day for my filter to read "Bud Light in a can" as "beer."


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just trying to find out why I have an obligation to do something. Furthermore, it's a bit surprising that asking that very question is proving to be such a curveball for the person who said it...
> ...



What would certainly help the "relationship" is, when someone tells me I have an obligation, that they explain why. I honestly don't see how that's such an outlandish request, nor do I understand why it's so difficult to answer. If someone is going to insist that I have an obligation to do something, that person has, at the very least, an obligation to explain _why_. I've no desire to shirk an obligation, but something doesn't become an obligation simply because some internet troll says it is. 

And, yeah, I'm definitely shaking my head...


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 19, 2013)

yah but my OTHER pixel resolves as "free beer" vs "not free beer"


----------



## Designer (Sep 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > You're clearly only reading superficially and with the intent to prove how wrong I am. Given how I'm apparently not allowed to have an opinion, I'm not wasting any more time addressing your insults. Have a nice day.
> ...





limr said:


> _This would surely lose me clients, but I'd rather lose clients than sleep.
> 
> But this is why I'm not even trying to pay my bills with photography. And of course, this probably means you will likely dismiss my opinion._






Steve5D said:


> Pretty much, yeah. A(s) someone who's not making a living with his camera, you have the luxury of viewing photography, as a business, through very idealistic glasses, and those glasses don't often offer a very realistic view...


.​


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



So why do you feel so _*obligated *_to correct him?  Seems to me you are validating his argument by the very act of arguing against it?  ;-)


----------



## gsgary (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> yah but my OTHER pixel resolves as "free beer" vs "not free beer"



I would rather pay for good beer than get free bad beer


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 19, 2013)

Designer said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



^^^^^

THAT...


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...



I'm not trying to correct him. I'm trying to get him to explain his position that we have some "obligation" to educate.

Given his constant dodging of having to explain his silly comment, it's pretty obvious he's simply afraid to explain himself.

If I have an obligation to do something, by all means, explain to me why and I will shoulder every ounce of that obligation. But say it and run away? No, that's stupid and entirely dismissable...


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 19, 2013)

gsgary said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > yah but my OTHER pixel resolves as "free beer" vs "not free beer"
> ...



^^^^^

THAT...


----------



## gsgary (Sep 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...



I'm nearly beer'd up been on the lash every night this week last night tonight and it will be a good one, beer and these Wille and the Bandits - Official Website - Home


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 19, 2013)

gsgary said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > yah but my OTHER pixel resolves as "free beer" vs "not free beer"
> ...



I would too.  But I don't always do what I'd rather.  Sometimes, once in a blue moon on a tuesday, I'll find the social grace to accept a crappy beer that's being offered.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...



I turned down a bottle of Buds last night at my brother in laws and had a cup of tea before we went out


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 19, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Right. You want him to explain it mostly on the expectation that the explanation will be broken, and _then_ you will be obligated to correct him.  If there were no obligation to correct, then there would be no interest beating an explanation out of him.

If you really wanted an explanation so you could find common ground, you'd (hopefully) go at it with a different attitude.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 19, 2013)

I think this one has pretty much run its course.  Time to go shoot something!


----------

