# Is my title going to be offensive to museum curators?



## Ilovemycam (Aug 21, 2013)

ArtSlant - 'Anorexic Under a Storm Cloud'


Remember when I told you in July the Catholic street fair I was shooting at was going to call the police because they didn&#8216;t want me shooting pix of kids there? Well this was one of a handful of pix I got before being thrown out. 

I talked about it on another forum and told them I just don't shoot kids, I shoot any damn thing I like from anorexics to kids to dogs...does not matter. Someone got offended when I mentioned anorexics. Does not matter a bit to me. As I said I shoot any damn thing I please if it is legal. But I have to deal with other people, namely museum curators. So give me some feedback on the naming of this pix.

Shot with a Widelux. First film I shot in eons. I may go with the hyper-real version, just have to see. This is the grunge, heavy duty freaked out version. I don&#8217;t care if you like it or not. Over processed, trying to make something out of nothing, vernacular, whatever. Just answer if you think the title will offend a museum curator or not.

But also keep in mind my entire portfolio shown at Artslant when you answer. If you find most of my work offensive then this should not be any big deal. 
*
Feel free to offer a title that my be less offensive as well. 
*
Thanks!


----------



## amolitor (Aug 21, 2013)

I am pretty sure that museum curators are not offended by titles. Ever.


----------



## runnah (Aug 21, 2013)

I don't think that lady is anorexic. Looks like just the victim of old age where muscles and skin tension fade away.


----------



## curtyoungblood (Aug 21, 2013)

I think in this case, I would be much more concerned with the accuracy of the statement. Why do you think she is anorexic? If you don't know for a fact that she is, then I'd be worried about labeling her something that she isn't. Being labelled an anorexic could have serious effects for the woman in the photograph, and if she is not actually anorexic, I'd be concerned about being held accountable for the damage I caused.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 21, 2013)

what museum curator would ever see this title?


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 21, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> Catholic street fair I was shooting at was going to call the police because they didn&#8216;t want me shooting pix of kids there



Talk about black pots and kettles.  sheesh.

Anyhow, the problem isn't that anorexic is offensive, it's that mislabeling something in this way, which to me is not really artistically supportable, is just cheezy bad art.

What museum is in the market for HDR "making something from nothing" cheesily mislabeled art?


----------



## wyogirl (Aug 21, 2013)

I am not sure this applies to art, but as a marketing director, I was unable to use photographs of people if I were using words like anorexic (or any health condition for that matter) if they were in fact not anorexic.  Labeling someone is an opening for a slander lawsuit.  Just my 2 cents.

Now, is the word anorexic offensive.... not if its used correctly.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 21, 2013)

He's asking about Museum Curators specifically, not about whether the title is generally offensive. Of course they won't be offended. They're not offended by either the title or the work "Piss Christ" or 10,000 imitators, after all. Come on.

Actually, this is just a troll to get people to look at his pictures, with a little defensive shield in case of negative feedback, but we'll ignore that.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 21, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Actually, this is just a troll to get people to look at his pictures, with a little defensive shield in case of negative feedback, but we'll ignore that.



it's okay, I disguised my negative feedback as well...


----------



## GaryT (Aug 21, 2013)

That's just a skinny woman in her 70s! Unless it was a portrait of somebody suffering from anorexia....a 'this is my pain/life' type of picture, I don't think anybody could or would call this art.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 21, 2013)

I think it would offend a curator if it were _slanderous_, which it very well might be.

Offend as in "where do you get off diagnosing that poor old lady as anorexic?" Not "oh my god somebody used the word anorexic!"


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 21, 2013)

Im curious as to the thought process for deciding on the title. 
Why use the word "anorexic" at all? 
Why not "woman under a storm" 
or just "under a storm" 
"Colorful dress in a storm"? 

Did you use that word to produce some sort of visceral response from people? 
Anorexia is a medical condition. Are you certain she has it?

I don't personally find anything offensive. 
I think people that are "offended"  by something are too often using the word "offensive"  to mask their own issues or inadequacies. 

I also think the exact same thing about people that purposely use known "offensive" language and imagery to evoke an emotionally negative response from other people. (not saying that is or is not the case here, i have no idea what your intent was obviously) 

Anyway, the picture isn't really my cup of tea, and having no experience whatsoever with museum art, i cannot say whether a curator would or would not have issues with either the title or the picture itself.


----------



## DarkShadow (Aug 21, 2013)

I still believe in this thing called integrity - a soundness of moral character thats clearly not demonstrated here.


----------



## sleist (Aug 21, 2013)

Why would a museum even be interested in the first place?
The title is irrelevant.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 21, 2013)

sleist said:


> Why would a museum even be interested in the first place?
> The title is irrelevant.


I rather find myself agreeing with this.  What I see is an image which IMO is poorly composed and grossly over-processed photographed and titled specifically with the intent of producing a controversial subject, rather in the same way that some people photograph the homeless for the "shock value".  I'm not a museum curator, nor do I play one on television, but I can't imagine seeing this image displayed in a public gallery.


----------



## shaylou (Aug 21, 2013)

If you "do not give a damn" about so much why do you care about offending anyone? You obviously "don't give a damn" about mislabeling a person. Are you a doctor and this is your subject or are you just a closed minded judgmental person. (That's rhetorical)...


----------



## deeky (Aug 21, 2013)

Neither am I a curator, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night..... and I wouldn't hang it in a gallery.  But then I walk past a lot of the crap I see there too.

I think offensiveness would particularly be the case for those that have actually suffered the disease.  I think getting it into a gallery as the basis for evaluation is somewhat offensive.  Shoot/process well and respect your subjects and the gallery will come.


----------



## sleist (Aug 22, 2013)

deeky said:


> Neither am I a curator, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night..... and I wouldn't hang it in a gallery.  But then I walk past a lot of the crap I see there too.
> 
> I think offensiveness would particularly be the case for those that have actually suffered the disease.  I think getting it into a gallery as the basis for evaluation is somewhat offensive.  Shoot/process well and respect your subjects and the gallery will come.



I'm having problem with the whole "send my photos to museums" concept the OP keeps bringing up.
A gallery will hang what it thinks it can sell (or what an artist pays to have hung in some cases).
I would think a museum curator would be operating under a different set of criteria than mail-in exhibit entries.
I imagine these all end up in the "circular file exhibit".


----------



## weepete (Aug 22, 2013)

Do we really need to cover this stuff again? I'm pretty sure that by now the OP has a good enough idea of what is thought by the regulars in this forum and however you personally feel or think of his work or what he is trying to do and whither it is achievable is really neither here nor there.

To the OP - I don't think that's a yes or no question. Some may find it offensive others not, but I do think you definatley run the risk of offending with this photo and this title.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 22, 2013)

sleist said:


> Why would a museum even be interested in the first place?
> The title is irrelevant.



quoted for truth.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Aug 22, 2013)

tirediron said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > Why would a museum even be interested in the first place?
> ...




Don't the majority of his posts always wind up about how his work is in musuems etc. etc. etc. post discusses being offensive. something to well, create controversy. then says he doesnt care wether you like it or not just answer wether a museum creater would find the name offensive. i'd say this is to generate traffic to the photo more then anything. But since ive had absolutly no experience with how musuem curaters act or feel. I will say no. that is my expert opinion.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 22, 2013)

I am offended by your title.... primarily because is it not true! You call this art? What museum would possibly be interested in something like this?

I am sure the lady in the image would be very offended by your title... she is not anorexic. I can see why they asked you to leave also... shooting an image of a lady in that body position, from the rear?

I agree with Amolitor... this is more troll than anything....


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> I don't think that lady is anorexic. Looks like just the victim of old age where muscles and skin tension fade away.




Maybe, she looked skinnier in the front. I did see a great anorexic at the market. Would have loved to shoot her. But it is hard picking people up on the street to shoot like that at their house.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

curtyoungblood said:


> I think in this case, I would be much more concerned with the accuracy of the statement. Why do you think she is anorexic? If you don't know for a fact that she is, then I'd be worried about labeling her something that she isn't. Being labelled an anorexic could have serious effects for the woman in the photograph, and if she is not actually anorexic, I'd be concerned about being held accountable for the damage I caused.



In the front she looked very skinny. She may be thin for some other health reason? I don't know? When street shooting you don't have time to think much, you think later. In this case the anorexic looking body look made me want to shoot her as well as her bright dress. So that was the founding father of the photo as well as my description.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

Braineack said:


> what museum curator would ever see this title?



I don't know even if I will send it out as part of a portfolio. Just feeling it out. It is not a great shot, but it is not trash either. I was just wondering how the title would go over if the pix was at my Tumblr and a curator sqw it. Tumblr is where I keep more of my portfolio. I send my stuff out all over the world. The museums will never knock on my door, so I knock on theirs.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > Catholic street fair I was shooting at was going to call the police because they didnt want me shooting pix of kids there
> ...



So you think she is not a good enough anorexic for the label?


----------



## runnah (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> In the front she looked very skinny. She may be thin for some other health reason? I don't know? When street shooting you don't have time to think much, you think later. In this case the anorexic looking body look made me want to shoot her as well as her bright dress. So that was the founding father of the photo as well as my description.




Sounds like a very exploitative style of shooting.

Judging from the short hair I would have to say that there is a very good chance she had cancer and had chemo treatment.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

wyogirl said:


> I am not sure this applies to art, but as a marketing director, I was unable to use photographs of people if I were using words like anorexic (or any health condition for that matter) if they were in fact not anorexic. Labeling someone is an opening for a slander lawsuit. Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Now, is the word anorexic offensive.... not if its used correctly.



Her face is not visible, do you think there is a problem?


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> curtyoungblood said:
> 
> 
> > I think in this case, I would be much more concerned with the accuracy of the statement. Why do you think she is anorexic? If you don't know for a fact that she is, then I'd be worried about labeling her something that she isn't. Being labelled an anorexic could have serious effects for the woman in the photograph, and if she is not actually anorexic, I'd be concerned about being held accountable for the damage I caused.
> ...



So you assume she is anorexic just because she is not part of the obesity problem? Or maybe you aren't aware of what advanced aging does to the human body, especially when there are not massive amounts of lipid tissue to hide the muscular atrophy and skin stretching that occurs?  

"Founding father of the photo"? .. jeez.. what a goofy metaphor.... lol.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Im curious as to the thought process for deciding on the title.
> Why use the word "anorexic" at all?
> Why not "woman under a storm"
> or just "under a storm"
> ...




As I said. I decided to shoot her because she looked like a anorexic and anorexics have always interested me in shooting.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 22, 2013)

TPF is so wonderfully inconsistent. When someone unpopular uses some potentially offensive term, TPF becomes a veritable bastion of righteousness. When one of the in crowd uses a potentially offensive term, it's SUPER FUNNY!

I guess some of the members may actually still be in high school. Does that explain it?


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> He's asking about Museum Curators specifically, not about whether the title is generally offensive. Of course they won't be offended. They're not offended by either the title or the work "Piss Christ" or 10,000 imitators, after all. Come on.
> 
> Actually, this is just a troll to get people to look at his pictures, with a little defensive shield in case of negative feedback, but we'll ignore that.



There you go again Amolitor, trying to build up your self-worth by tearing down others. 

I've told you this before. Self worth is an inisde job. You wont succed building slef esteem by attacking others. 

My posting record is an open book for all to see. My posts are always on target and to the point and deal with the subject of photography. The same cannot be said about your personal attacks.


----------



## runnah (Aug 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> TPF is so wonderfully inconsistent. When someone unpopular uses some potentially offensive term, TPF becomes a veritable bastion of righteousness. When one of the in crowd uses a potentially offensive term, it's SUPER FUNNY!
> 
> I guess some of the members may actually still be in high school. Does that explain it?



While I agree, and secretly hope I am one of the cool kids I think you missed the point. 

The point is the term anorexic isn't offensive when used properly. In this case label some old woman as an anorexic is just brash and looking to make it out to be like the OP is some cutting edge artistic badass when in reality it's just a trite and badly taken photo.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Im curious as to the thought process for deciding on the title.
> Why use the word "anorexic" at all?
> Why not "woman under a storm"
> or just "under a storm"
> ...



It goes back to the OP

_"I talked about it on another forum and told them I just don't shoot kids, I shoot any damn thing I like from anorexics to kids to dogs...does not matter. Someone got offended when I mentioned anorexics."

_People are always offended at one thing or another. Someone got offended when I used the term Indian and not Native American. Another got ruffled from Black and not Afro American. I dodn't really care. But was wondering more about Anorexic here.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

No one has offered their own title to the pix. Any suggestions?


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

sleist said:


> Why would a museum even be interested in the first place?
> The title is irrelevant.




Don't know if they would? Just wanted to make sure it would not be too offensive if at my Tumblr.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> My posting record is an open book for all to see. My posts are always on target and to the point and deal with the subject of photography. The same cannot be said about your personal attacks.



Yup, yup it is. So's mine. In the extremely unlikely event that anyone gives a damn, I suggest that that anyone actually go inspect the record.

Click on my name over on the left side there, above my avatar, select "View Profile" from the popup. This should take you to a "amolitor's Activity" tab. Under that tab you'll see sub-tabs for "All", "amolitor", "Friends" and "Photos". Click on the "amolitor" subtab. A similar process can be followed for ilovemycam. Then you'll actually know.

This is a simple and often quite interesting exercise.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

tirediron said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > Why would a museum even be interested in the first place?
> ...




That is fine. But many street shots are just that. Well, they don't have to be HDR.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

DarkShadow said:


> I still believe in this thing called integrity - a soundness of moral character thats clearly not demonstrated here.




Morals are subjective, localized and are based on custom a lot of the time. Maybe you can explain. 

Is the problem that she may not be an anorexic? If she was an anorexic, then is there a problem suing the term? 

Or is it something else?


----------



## amolitor (Aug 22, 2013)

People don't like you, ilovemycam, and they are using your use of the word "anorexic" to justify some bile. You're never going to move on from your obsession with mailing photos to museums, but perhaps you can get past this one.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

shaylou said:


> If you "do not give a damn" about so much why do you care about offending anyone? You obviously "don't give a damn" about mislabeling a person. Are you a doctor and this is your subject or are you just a closed minded judgmental person. (That's rhetorical)...



Hey, I just have to go with what I see on the street. I didn't interview her.

The majority of curators are old women. I don't think like an old woman. I am looking for feedback to help me decide if my title is offensive. For me it is not offensive, but I can't go by that.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

I updated the image in the OP. Decided on hyper real and dumped the grunge.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

tirediron said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > Why would a museum even be interested in the first place?
> ...



forgot to add...

A Widelux is tough to shoot good street pix with. The photo is pretty much full frame. Now, you don't have to like the photo. I'm not trying to sell you on it. I'm just saying many times non street photogs view street work like it should be some studio set up shot. I've looked and looked for good street work done with a Widelux. And it is very slim pickings.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> The majority of curators are old women.



Say what?


----------



## PixelRabbit (Aug 22, 2013)

If the use of the word anorexic fits the image and you can say with 100% certainty that the subject of the image is battling anorexia no it is not offensive.
That is not the case here, you have no confirmation from the subject that she is indeed anorexic and there are many indicators that she is not.

IMHO it will read untrue at the very least and stand out as careless, insensitive, inaccurate and or a selfish attempt to make your art something it isn't by using anorexic as a buzz word.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> No one has offered their own title to the pix. Any suggestions?



Title it: Horribly Composed, Boring, Over-processed Snapshot


----------



## runnah (Aug 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> People don't like you, ilovemycam, and they are using your use of the word "anorexic" to justify some bile.



I like him just fine. I dislike his choices, thats all.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

deeky said:


> Neither am I a curator, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night..... and I wouldn't hang it in a gallery. But then I walk past a lot of the crap I see there too.
> 
> I think offensiveness would particularly be the case for those that have actually suffered the disease. I think getting it into a gallery as the basis for evaluation is somewhat offensive. Shoot/process well and respect your subjects and the gallery will come.



I thought you may be from Canada. They call museums,  galleries in Canada. 

We all take our own directions with our pix. I like street and I like hyper real....bight and bold. If people hate HDR hyper real, the wont like it. You just got to please yourself with the work. But I still try and take into account if things may go too far for others. 

I'm a Tumblr photog. On Tumblr, we have no limits except that which is illegal. As such we never think a thing about offensive, if it is legal, we just do. But the world at large is not like Tumblr.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

sleist said:


> deeky said:
> 
> 
> > Neither am I a curator, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night..... and I wouldn't hang it in a gallery. But then I walk past a lot of the crap I see there too.
> ...




Galleries are not interested in anything except what they can sell. And to sell, you have to have a big name pretty much. 

Yes, you are right about the trash. But that is how it is with any of ther arts. Writing, music, art proper...lots gets trashed. But we still do what we love and still try to promote.


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> We all take our own directions with our pix. I like street and I like hyper real....bight and bold. If people hate HDR hyper real, the wont like it. You just got to please yourself with the work. But I still try and take into account if things may go too far for others.



HDR is hyper real?  More like Hyper UNREAL.  But at least delusional statements like that help shed light on your original choice of title.

If you have the ability and inclination to shoot decent stuff, why post this in this way?  Just to spin people up?


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > In the front she looked very skinny. She may be thin for some other health reason? I don't know? When street shooting you don't have time to think much, you think later. In this case the anorexic looking body look made me want to shoot her as well as her bright dress. So that was the founding father of the photo as well as my description.
> ...




That is possible. I thought cancer as well. But I don't know.  

What name would you give it? Names are important when you promote your work. You can't just list endless pix's entitled 'Untitled #1,2,45,134' etc. 

No, I never make a dime from my pix. I exploit no one. I just record what I see that interests me. I am asking feedback on the title for this very reason of trying to see how the ttile would fly.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 22, 2013)

Galleries, not museums, are where new artists get exposure. That's _how the system works_. New artists sending stuff to museums is pointless. In fact, established artists doing it is pretty much pointless. Museums collect what their curatorial staff feels is important, fits into their collection, and which is available. Random blokes off the street fit none of these categories.

Galleries, on the other hand, are always on the lookout for new artists. It's _what they do_. It's their function. It's how they make their money.

To get a gallery's attention you have to:

- demonstrate that you can build a portfolio, that you can produce a coherent body of work and will be able to continue to do so.
- demonstrate that your body of work is artistically coherent, that it says something, that's it's new but not too new.
- be quite lucky.

Where's your artist's statement? What are you trying to accomplish with this stuff? What's interesting about it, what's new? You spend a lot of time saying stuff like  I'm a street photog we don't think we just shoot but very little time trying to pull together an interesting central idea. In fact, you seem quite dismissive of a central idea or theme. A gallery that takes you on is going to make a substantial investment in you, in order that you may sell works to a pretty idiosyncratic group of people. If you're not willing and able to work with them, if you're not fully aware of what the problems the gallery faces in selling to these people and fully on board with helping the gallery solve those problems, why on earth would they spend 5 seconds talking to you? Would you walk into a car dealership and start demanding that they sell you a wheelbarrow? Would you walk into a farmer's market and offer to supply them with all the secondhand ceiling tiles they can sell?

You're not even getting to first base, and you're not going to get to first base unless you start thinking like an artist. Protip: It's ALL ABOUT the central idea. It's ALL ABOUT a coherent body of work that says something.

I'm pretty sure you're not interested in getting to first base, I'm pretty sure you're a lot more interested in talking about how tough it is for a top-level street photog such as yourself to get noticed by the conspiracy of old women who hate people like you. That's certainly a lot easier than actually being a working artist.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > curtyoungblood said:
> ...




You can look at it as a goofy metaphor, but your not a street photog. Your a set up, studio photog. So of course you have a different thought process in mind. You start doing museum quality street photos and then you can call me a goof.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> No one has offered their own title to the pix. Any suggestions?



I offered a few.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Galleries, not museums, are where new artists get exposure. That's _how the system works_. New artists sending stuff to museums is pointless. In fact, established artists doing it is pretty much pointless. Museums collect what their curatorial staff feels is important, fits into their collection, and which is available. Random blokes off the street fit none of these categories.
> 
> Galleries, on the other hand, are always on the lookout for new artists. It's _what they do_. It's their function. It's how they make their money.
> 
> ...




I am not interested in galleries. Before I started soliciting museums I tried with some galleries. No success, but I only wrote 30 or so. I've had much more success with museums or rare book libraries. My interest is not with $, it is with preservation.

Here is a list if any of you would like to give it a try...

US Photography Galleries / Photography Gallery Guide


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > deeky said:
> ...


----------



## runnah (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> That is possible. I thought cancer as well. But I don't know.
> 
> What name would you give it? Names are important when you promote your work. You can't just list endless pix's entitled 'Untitled #1,2,45,134' etc.
> 
> No, I never make a dime from my pix. I exploit no one. I just record what I see that interests me. I am asking feedback on the title for this very reason of trying to see how the ttile would fly.



Well just title it based on what you do know about the subject rather than what you are assuming. To me she seems like she is still a vibrant person in an old body. Hence the colorful dress.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 22, 2013)

Of course you got nowhere with galleries. I have explained to you several times, this time in quite a lot of detail, why you got nowhere with galleries. You're going to have even less success with museums, for reasons also outlined. Your probability of placing work in any credible museum with your current approach is exactly zero. It is Not. Going. To. Happen.

Which begs several questions, but let's just set that aside.

If preservation is your goal, I suggest that you start a business with that as the stated goal. Persuade suckers to pony up $X to have their work preserved, and use the money to endow a small museum devoted to rotating the random collection of rubbish contributed by the suckers. Include your work in that rotation. With a good pitch you could probably raise a few million bucks pretty fast, there's tons of people out there who would love to place their work in a "real museum" but are just as clueless as you are about how to actually accomplish that.

The point being that museums are not in the business of "preserving" random rubbish. The only businesses that I can think of that would be in that business are ones started specifically to do it. So, start one.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > People don't like you, ilovemycam, and they are using your use of the word "anorexic" to justify some bile.
> ...



None of this matters.  What matter is this..do I like or love my work. 

Over the years I have heard all sorts of criticism about my photography...

"I don't like color."
"I don't like BW."
"I don't like HDR."
"I don't selective color."
"I don't like diffusion."
"I don't like Hyper-Real, it is too cartoonish." 
"Your photos are too contrasty."
"Your photos are too grainy."
"Your trying to make something out of nothing."
"Your photos are too sensational."
"Don't photograph the homeless."
"Don't photograph kids without their parents permission."
"I find photos of people boring."
"Your not a good photographer."
'Your exploiting the homeless."
'Your photograph does not work."
"I don't like flower photographs they are boring."
"I don't understand what were you trying to say?" 
"Digital photography is not real photography."
"You work is not museum worthy."
"Your work is overprocessed."
"Don't take pictures of people in public without their permission."
"Don't photograph anorexics."
"Cover up the breasts."
"Your photos are staged."
"I don't like your photo because it leaves nothing for the imagination."
"Your photography is vernacular." 
"You should trash it."
"I don't like fisheye photos."
"I don't like wide-angle distortion." 
"Don't send unsolicited photos to museums."
"She is a drunk, she is fat, she is an attention whore, she is trailer trash.' 


Where would I be if I listened to these critics? 

After you learn the basics, you have to learn to trust your own instincts. 

If you can't trust your own instincts, then you must follow the critics and shoot for them and not for yourself. I just wanted to get some feedback on the title. So that was why I brought it up.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> TPF is so wonderfully inconsistent. When someone unpopular uses some potentially offensive term, TPF becomes a veritable bastion of righteousness. When one of the in crowd uses a potentially offensive term, it's SUPER FUNNY!
> 
> I guess some of the members may actually still be in high school. Does that explain it?



I don't know. I just like to bounce stuff of people to broaden my views...once in a while.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > The majority of curators are old women.
> ...



Yes, for photo anyway. Check it out. I guess 60 - 70% or more. Although many of the lesser museums have young women as curator.


----------



## sleist (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> No one has offered their own title to the pix. Any suggestions?



Delusions of grandeur.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

You guys keep bringing up comp. Go find a better Widelux vertical street shot on the web. I've only seen one of a cowboy at a rodeo. It was what I had with me at the time. Not the best choice, but we try to make due with what cam we got in hand.

I need some serious names if I am to drop my title. If you know mine is wrong, then you must know what is right. So send them in.  If no one submits a good name, I'm leaving it as-is or can call it 'Untitled #3'.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 22, 2013)

Nobody cares if you drop your title or not, dude. Do whatever makes you happy.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> No one has offered their own title to the pix. Any suggestions?


Rainbow Brite at 90?



Ilovemycam said:


> You can look at it as a goofy metaphor, but your not a street photog. Your a set up, studio photog. So of course you have a different thought process in mind. You start doing museum quality street photos and then you can call me a goof.



Why is it that the so-called "Street Photographers" like to pretend that what they do is so much more difficult than what anyone else does?  EVERY venue has its own challenges, and EVERY venue can claim to be more difficult than the others.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> I thought you may be from Canada. They call museums, galleries in Canada.


Huh... as a bit of an expert on being from Canada, this is news to me.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

Braineack said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > No one has offered their own title to the pix. Any suggestions?
> ...




Well we can all spend out time tearing down others work. But I would appreciate useful feedback and not cheap attacks.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> ...Over the years I have heard all sorts of criticism about my photography...
> 
> "I don't like color."
> "I don't like BW."
> ...


Possibly in a gallery by now...


----------



## SCraig (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> *Where would I be if I listened to these critics? *
> 
> After you learn the basics, you have to learn to trust your own instincts.
> 
> If you can't trust your own instincts, then you must follow the critics and shoot for them and not for yourself. I just wanted to get some feedback on the title. So that was why I brought it up.



Shooting photographs that people DO like and not getting rejection notices?

You keep stating that you don't care what people think of your photography yet you keep trying to impress museum curators.  If you are going to impress them then perhaps you need to stop and think about what THEY like as opposed to what YOU like.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

You guys like 'Rainbow Lady Under a Storm Cloud'?


----------



## Braineack (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Ilovemycam said:
> ...



it wasn't an attack; i think that title matches the work perfectly.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 22, 2013)

ilovemycam has ignored this before, but those of you listening in the audience may be interested:

Any credible museum is offered Stuff constantly. Any credible museum will have, several times a year _at least_ a conversation with a substantial donor who is offering them 6 figures or more along with a donation of some rubbish. Their daughter's paintings, their friend's photographs. Any credible museum will turn these things down 100 percent of the time.

If you offer a museum $250,000 and a Picasso, they may well turn you down if the Picasso does not fit in with their curatorial vision, unless you're willing to let them sell or trade the Picasso away.

Why is this? Because a museum literally _is it's curatorial vision_. Without curatorial integrity, you haven't got a museum, you've just got a pile of stuff.

Art museums get all kinds of crap sent to them unsolicited, despite for the most part having a stated policy of "do not send us stuff". They pretty much throw it all out. It's frustrating, because it burns staff time, and it takes up dumpster space. If you're tempted to try out ilovemycam's plan, do a little research first. It took me about 1 minute of googling to turn up a half a dozen articles on this issue, and the rest of the links on the first page of results were links to various museum's "please don't mail us ****" statements.


----------



## weepete (Aug 22, 2013)

Taste the Rainbow!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 22, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> If the use of the word anorexic fits the image and you can say with 100% certainty that the subject of the image is battling anorexia no it is not offensive.
> That is not the case here, you have no confirmation from the subject that she is indeed anorexic and there are many indicators that she is not.
> 
> IMHO it will read untrue at the very least and stand out as careless, insensitive, inaccurate and or a selfish attempt to make your art something it isn't by using anorexic as a buzz word.



THIS  X Infinity!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ilovemycam said:
> ...



I don't care for street... and it is one also one of the hardest types of photography to shoot well! And, sorry.. you don't!

How do you like my studio, staged, setup UNDERWATER photography?    Or my setup, studio MACRO photography? (those insects follow posing instructions so well!)


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 22, 2013)

It's my opinion that if: 1) the OP wasn't so relentlessly self-promoting at the expense of everything and everybody else and.
2) didn't beat the crap out of every picture he takes with the processing in a attempt to make it look special,
he wouldn't raise so many hackles.

As it is, he has alienated many people and anything good he has shot is submerged under that processing.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 22, 2013)

I just looked at the original photo again...and it looks to me like the elderly lady is flipping you the bird!!!

20130821233602-_Anorexic_Under_a_Storm_Cloud__Copyright_2013_Daniel_Teoli_Jr__LR.jpg

I do not think she is necessarily anorexic. I've read through this thread now. I don't have much to say about it.


----------



## weags77 (Aug 22, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> None of this matters.  What matter is this..do I like or love my work.
> 
> Over the years I have heard all sorts of criticism about my photography...
> 
> ...



If you are really listening to your instincts and not the critics you should be aware and add to that list that: 

"Your attitude sucks" 

This might also explain why people are commenting more about you than your photos. As for someone looking to get into galleries or museums I could see this being more of a problem than the wretched processing done on this piece of "art" or any attractive/offensive title you could come up with for it.


----------



## weags77 (Aug 22, 2013)

And as for blaming your widelux camera for this photos shortcomings,  a quick google search for street photos taken with a widelux, showed me that its not the camera who'd be to blame here. 

You'd also probably be wise to remove or blur out the guys face standing next to this "anorexic" woman if you're at all worried about offending someone. It may be his wife, mother, relative or friend.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 22, 2013)

OK Amolitor. 76% of the photo curators I wrote to are women. This % is from 74 postal mailings I did. 

But this is not an accurate figure. Many times you cannot find out who is the curator of photography. It is a well guarded secret. So things get addressed generic otherwise. So the other 40 something mailings i did can go female, male or committee...I don't know.

I have a few hundred more records with my emails. (The lesser museums only get an email and not a print mailing.) But I don&#8217;t have that time to review them all nor do I really care. But from memory the stats are about the same.

The only reason I brought up the female curator issue Amolitor was the fact that most women I poll dislike my photos. But that is the majority of the curator audience I deal with and I just do the best I can with what is.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 22, 2013)

If the message hasn't gotten across about the issues, I don't think it will.

IMO, this is just getting ugly.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 22, 2013)

Agree!  I don't think there's any more of value to be gained from this thread.


----------

