# Styles



## Petraio Prime (Jun 18, 2010)

It seems to me there are regional and generational 'styles' of photography. I can always spot the 'typical American' style of wide-angle lens usage, for instance, in which there is an attempt to include a lot in the frame. I seldom use wide-angle lenses in that way, and I use long lenses a lot more than others do (it seems). The American 'baby boomers' and 'hippies' seem to dominate the B&W large-format landscape 'zone-system' crowd. I am not aware of much large-format zs work by Europeans. In other words, there seems to be much less individuality or variation than expected in styles of work; a lot depends on your generation and nationality.

In other words, I can recognize 'typical American' and 'typical European' photography in several genres. I can also tell 'baby boomer' work from that of younger photographers.

Also, many American photographers seem to delight in front-on, full-length (or nearly so) 'portraits' in which the subject is growling or staring with a blank expression. A couple of examples by Leibovitz, typically 'American':












Photographically speaking, very little is going on in these photographs. No great feats of composition or timing or lighting. The only value they have is because of the subjects, being celebrities.

I just noticed there's a link to a video on this site, an ad, apparently, for the lights Annie uses, showing her working. The ad is _so _typically American...complete with the new age music and shaky camera....unbelievably hokey...


----------



## Derrel (Jun 18, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> SNIP>
> Photographically speaking, very little is going on in these photographs. No great feats of composition or timing or lighting. The only value they have is because of the subjects, being celebrities.



Yes, I'd have to agree; the vast majority of Liebovitz's celebrity photography is pretty minimalist, and it's very difficult for many people to separate the subjects from the photographic techniques used in the pictures. Like the first photo: I think that's Iggy Pop, fairly recently, after he'd been on his health and fitness and working out craze. And the last shot...if that wasn't related to HBO's hugely successful series The Sopranos, the photo would have a much different significance, but Tony Soprano's prolific womanizing and his underworld boss status both sort of come to the forefront of the minds of viewers who are already pre-disposed to read into the photos some type of meaning. But....if the subjects were not famous people, these photos would be relegated to blase status quite easily.

Of course, in the realm of "celebrity portraiture", these types of photos are kind of what many people expect. But how would the first and second photos be if say, we substituted a fat, grossly overweight 60 year old father-in-law of somebody from Queens, New York??? What significance,culturally, would those photos have if that change were made? But then again, is that even a fair comparison? The photos are, originally, for the celebrity-worshiping fans of mass-market American magazines.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 18, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > SNIP>
> ...



I have never been impressed by her work. Not in the least. But the point I'm making here is that this is typically 'American' style, as much as is say John Sexton's stuff:

Again, the right-angle view:






Just as with the Leibovitz shots, no creativity here to speak of. It is a pretty scene, of course, but there is nothing _photographically _challenging about it. Symmetrical, right-angle composition is very common:






And not only are the photographs usually all in the same style, these guys all look and dress alike. There is the 'American landscape zone dude' 'look':






The 'residual hippie' characteristics (the wry smile, beard, denim shirt, jeans etc.).

You don't have to look at these guy's pictures. You know what they look like, and they all look the same. LOL Tall, Northern European ancestry, bearded, etc. etc. etc. And of course, their photo has to include their left hand resting on a camera on a _tripod_...after all, if you're a serious photographer you _must _use a tripod (Gitzo, preferably). 

These guys crack me up.


----------



## KmH (Jun 18, 2010)

I was wondering if you had ever seen this from the TPF Rules and Regs:



> * You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated.


 
The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum - FAQ

Annie could sure use some extra cash. 

I was also wondering what style of clothing you would expect landscape photographers to wear, instead of a durable shirt and jeans.

Do you do landscape photography? If you do. What do you wear? :lmao:

You have a prejudicial viewpoint.

http://www.usu.edu/psy3510/prejudice.html


----------



## Derrel (Jun 18, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I have never been impressed by her work. Not in the least. But the point I'm making here is that this is typically 'American' style, as much as is say John Sexton's stuff:
> ...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 19, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 19, 2010)

This is both funny and pathetic. Why should European and American photogs shoot the same? Of course they will shoot differently. They come from different cultures. Not only that but European photogs from different countries also show differences in their styles, all somewhat related to their cultures.

As far as Annie Leibowitz is concerned, let's see your portraits of stars. I don't like her photos for the technique (her portrait of the Obama family is pretty atrocious, imho) but for the image. Let's see you get Whoopi Goldberg in a tub full of milk or John Lennon nude on top of Yoko... By the way, Yoko would only take off her shirt, so Leibowitz decided to keep her dressed.

And to be honest, I only pay attention to the technical side of a photo when I'm teaching, when I'm on a forum, or when the photo is not that interesting. What the image tells me is more important than any technical thing.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 19, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> This is both funny and pathetic. Why should European and American photogs shoot the same? Of course they will shoot differently. They come from different cultures. Not only that but European photogs from different countries also show differences in their styles, all somewhat related to their cultures.
> 
> As far as Annie Leibowitz is concerned, let's see your portraits of stars. I don't like her photos for the technique (her portrait of the Obama family is pretty atrocious, imho) but for the image. Let's see you get Whoopi Goldberg in a tub full of milk or John Lennon nude on top of Yoko... By the way, Yoko would only take off her shirt, so Leibowitz decided to keep her dressed.
> 
> And to be honest, I only pay attention to the technical side of a photo when I'm teaching, when I'm on a forum, or when the photo is not that interesting. What the image tells me is more important than any technical thing.



I was not singling out Leibovitz as being good or bad, just showing 'typical American style'. I am aware of those images you mentioned, but they don't really do much for me; they say to me that she is pretentious and easily impressed by 'celebrity'. Her photographs appeal to the people who watch television, and who read _Rolling Stone_ and think it's important. 

This thread is about generational and cultural effects on photographic style. Are you unaware of the popularity of 'nature' as subject matter in the US? Where are the new Willy Ronises?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 19, 2010)

KmH said:


> I was wondering if you had ever seen this from the TPF Rules and Regs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I don't do 'landscapes'. _Nachschlag_ of Romanticism that refuses to die. I think the nature and landscape people are all aliens from another world.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 19, 2010)

Annie's heros when she was learning her craft were my favorites Henri cartier Bresson and Robert Frank, is this a typical American photograph ?
http://venetianred.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/annie-leibovitze28094sarajevo-1993.jpg 

http://www.vanityfair.com/images/culture/2008/10/cuar02_annie0810.jpg


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 19, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I am aware of those images you mentioned, but they don't really do much for me; they say to me that she is pretentious and easily impressed by 'celebrity'.



I'm sorry but this says a lot more about you than it does about her.

So you have a problem with Annie Lebowitz. That's ok. Most of us have a problem with a photog or two. But it is quite obvious you have no idea what it is like to shoot celebrities with the access that she has.

I do (have an idea) because I do. Have access. Yet, I am quite jealous of her images.

Guess what: I think you are the alien and you feel better by attacking people who are obviously not going to defend themselves here.

Let's see you stuff.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 19, 2010)

gsgary said:


> Annie's heros when she was learning her craft were my favorites Henri cartier Bresson and Robert Frank, is this a typical American photograph ?
> http://venetianred.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/annie-leibovitze28094sarajevo-1993.jpg
> 
> http://www.vanityfair.com/images/culture/2008/10/cuar02_annie0810.jpg



HCB is OK, but overrated. His influence is absent from her work


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 19, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > I am aware of those images you mentioned, but they don't really do much for me; they say to me that she is pretentious and easily impressed by 'celebrity'.
> ...



Who's attacking anyone? I said her stuff appeals to people who read _Rolling Stone_ and watch TV. It doesn't appeal to me. It's just not the sort of thing I find appealing photographically.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 20, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Annie's heros when she was learning her craft were my favorites Henri cartier Bresson and Robert Frank, is this a typical American photograph ?
> ...



You have got to be joking HCB is one of the greatest photographers that ever lived, it proves you know nothing about photography


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 20, 2010)

gsgary said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Not at all. He was good, but there are many far better. Willy Ronis, for one, Gene Smith for another.

Nor can Meryl Streep act. Nor can Cemeron direct, or George Winston play piano. Everything you think you know is wrong. Everything you think is good is bad.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 20, 2010)

gsgary said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Not at all. He was good, but there are many far better. Willy Ronis, for one, Gene Smith for another.

Nor can Meryl Streep act. Nor can Cemeron direct, or George Winston play piano. Everything you think you know is wrong. Everything you think is good is bad.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 20, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...




Both are good but i wouldn't say they are better, Smiths war photography is brilliant


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 20, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I said her stuff appeals to people who read _Rolling Stone_ and watch TV. It doesn't appeal to me. It's just not the sort of thing I find appealing photographically.





Petraio Prime said:


> Nor can Meryl Streep act. Nor can Cemeron direct, or George Winston play piano. Everything you think you know is wrong. Everything you think is good is bad.



Sorry but I've never read Rolling Stone and haven't watched TV in over 17 years... :lmao:

Who made you GOD?

You know what they say about people with super uber confidence, with superiority complexes?


----------



## table1349 (Jun 20, 2010)




----------



## Derrel (Jun 20, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 20, 2010)

You guys realize that you're being trolled, don't you?  

If you reallly want pet to get worked up ask hime about the Zone System.  :lmao::lmao:

or look here.. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/200441-zone-system.html

I could be wrong but as he's on my ignore list so I can't know, if I am, sorry pet.  I just don't think so.  :mrgreen:


----------



## table1349 (Jun 20, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> You guys realize that you're being trolled, don't you?
> 
> If you reallly want pet to get worked up ask hime about the Zone System.  :lmao::lmao:
> 
> ...



*Party Pooper!!!   *:gah:  I was waiting to see how long this one would go and how fun it might get.  From a spectators point of view.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 20, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 21, 2010)

OH, well, carry on then.   :er:


----------



## Aayria (Jun 21, 2010)

"Those who can't be artists themselves become critics instead."


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

Aayria said:


> "Those who can't be artists themselves become critics instead."



Well photographers aren't 'artists'.


----------



## JR Davis (Jun 21, 2010)

To bad I was really getting interested in this thread


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

JR Davis said:


> To bad I was really getting interested in this thread



What is too bad?


----------



## Aayria (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Aayria said:
> 
> 
> > "Those who can't be artists themselves become critics instead."
> ...




:waiting:


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

Aayria said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Aayria said:
> ...



I realize this may come as a shock, but photographers are not artists.
'Artists' use brushes and paint (or chisels)....easy enough to understand.


----------



## Arch (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Aayria said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



Well its not a shock to me because i disagree with you.
The whole is photography an Art, is it an Art medium, is a photograph considered Art because an Artist says it is - argument goes waaaay back and is something many people and critics alike cannot agree on. You say it like it is set in stone, it is not.

The main problem we have at the moment with this arguement is what technology has progressed and how it has made an impact on not only the photographic process itself, but to the post processing. This changes the old fashioned view of a mechanical device recording a scene and a lab printing it for you, therefore not Art.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

Arch said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Aayria said:
> ...



The word 'art' has a specific meaning, like 'gold'. It means "made by hand'. Photographs are not 'works of art'; but 'works of skill'. Gold isn't silver because we have distinct words for theses two elements. If you are a silver miner and insist that what you bring out of the ground is gold, well sorry, language and metallurgy just doesn't work that way. You don't make photographs more important or meaningful by calling them 'art', just as you don't make silver more precious by calling it gold. Words have meanings. Get to know and understand what 'art' means.

And the more manipulation a digital file suffers, the less it is a photograph and the more it approaches 'art'.

'Medium' in art also has a meaning (oil, acrylic, watercolor, etc.). You're misusing that term as well. 'Photography' is not a 'medium' of art.

It matters not in the least whether you agree or not. You have no authority to change the meanings of words, any more than the silver miner does. Photographs are not works of art and cannot be works of art. It's impossible, because 'art' means 'made by hand'; works of art are representative (symbolic); photographs are _not _'made by hand' and _not _representative, but iconic. Photographs have a *causal *connection to something else _of which they are photographs_. Works of art do not have such a causal relationship; the relationship is _representational_.

If you disagree, it means you don't understand what the word 'art' means.

Photographers mistaken believe that bestowing the term 'art' to their work makes it more important. It doesn't. Photographs are _different_, neither better nor worse than art. This is not something that you can disagree about; you just have to accept it.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 21, 2010)

Now you are talking through your arse


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

gsgary said:


> Now you are talking through your arse



I'm terribly sorry you feel that way, but you see you're simply not qualified to 'disagree'. No-one is. Words have meanings. 'Art' _*means *_'made by hand'. This is really very, very, very simple. It has absolutely nothing to do with the technical skills (or lack thereof) of the photographer. The most brilliant photographer on the planet is not an artist. A 6-year old with a paint brush and canvas is.


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Now you are talking through your arse
> ...


Really?



> any field using the skills or techniques of art


And we use design principles, do we not?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

nchips1 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Sometimes. But that's not the criterion.

It's really very simple.


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> nchips1 said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


Sometimes -- if you're good, always.

No where in the current definitions do I see "made by hand," sir. And thus we resort to how "real" art is made: Most fundamentally the design principles, and we use them. Just like a painter can paint repeating lines, it takes a photographer to capture repeating lines in nature, or where ever, too.


----------



## Arch (Jun 21, 2010)

I have my understanding of what art is, I attended Art college for 5 years, degree etc... you cannot impose your idea of art on anyone else. This is regardless of the exact definitions of words, of course silver cannot be gold, but this doesn't mean that some forms of art should be separated simply because of what action was taken in its creation. It is not an exact and definite process.

Duchamp presented the idea back in 1917 with 'the fountain', art is not necessarily a physical action but more 'intellectual interpretation'.

This idea still persists in allot of modern art, I don't see why photography is any different or exempt from this idea. 





Petraio Prime said:


> And the more manipulation a digital file suffers, the less it is a photograph and the more it becomes 'art'.



Well yes, this is kind of my point. Technology can take away a need for any manual craft (which is another argument itself), but what is truthful about it, is that the action of using brushes (albeit digital) and creating changes in colour and focus points contribute to the act of making a photograph art.



Petraio Prime said:


> It matters not in the least whether you agree or not. You have no authority to change the meanings of words, any more than the silver miner does. Photographs are not works of art and cannot be works of art. It's impossible, because 'art' means 'made by hand'



See, this is where you fail.
As I said before the 'old fashioned' way of thinking is that the photo comes out of a mechanical device and then printed, therefore not art. But this *does not happen anymore!*
I for one, like to spend a good while with an image I have taken and add to it, *by hand*.

You said yourself that digital photo manipulation creates art. Therefore, unless you contradict yourself, my action of creating an image *is* art.

We can all start another huge debate about whether digital art is art, but that's another thread. I will say though that I know a few digital artists that create characters for comic illustrations and games, and IMO they are very much artists.
Therefore, what is and isn't art is not set in stone, which is my original point.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

nchips1 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > nchips1 said:
> ...



'Art' is not causally connected to anything. The 'relationship' is intentional, not causal. What causal connection exists between a paining and its subject matter? None. _A photograph is impossible without the existence of some other thing of which it is a photograph. This is not true of 'art'. 'Art' has no causal connection with its 'subject'.
_


----------



## Derrel (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Now you are talking through your arse
> ...



Art means, "made by hand"????? WTF? Where did you come up with that preposterous definition??? I kind of think gsgary said it best when he wrote, "Now you are talking through your arse."

Made by hand,eh?  What about the use of the machine-tools, like the paint brush and the hammer and chisel? Those implements are "tools", so therefore any painting done with tools, like brushes, or sculpture done with chisels and hammers on stone quarried using machines cannot be art. Sorry Petraio, but your definition of what art means must have come from some oddball cranky art professor somewhere in your past, because the narrow,oddball definition of art meaning "made by hand" is one I have never heard.

Art is typically defined as something that uses the elements and principles of design, and which is designed to evoke an emotional response in the viewer; "how" or "with what" that art work was made or constructed with is typically **not** a part of the definition of art, or fine art. Seriously man, you ought to be out trolling the Atlantic for billfish...some place where you'd have a chance of being skewered when landing a fish after your trolling efforts had resulted in a hook-up.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 21, 2010)

Art is anything that stimulates thoughts and emotions


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



You're simply mistaken. Photographers are _not _artists. No discussion is possible with photographers on this topic. You simply don't have the knowledge even to discuss it. I am a philosopher. I have a degree in philosophy and have studied this topic in depth _You have not. _I'm *telling *you what 'art' is. I'm not asking for your opinion on this matter, on which you have *no *knowledge. It's rude to try to discuss things that you're utterly unqualified to discuss.

Drop it, because you simply have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Arch (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> You're simply mistaken. Photographers are not artists. No discussion is possible with photographers on this topic. You simply don't have the knowledge even to discuss it. I am a philosopher. You are not. I'm *telling *you what 'art' is. I'm not asking for your opinion on this matter, on which you have no knowledge.



Im telling you YOUR wrong.

There, you have been told.


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I am a philosopher.


Then you're on the wrong forum.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



You're simply mistaken. Photographers are not artists. No discussion is possible with photographers on this topic. You simply don't have the knowledge even to discuss it.

A camera is _not _a 'tool'; it is a machine.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> You're simply mistaken. Photographers are _not _artists. No discussion is possible with photographers on this topic. You simply don't have the knowledge even to discuss it. I am a philosopher. I have a degree in philosophy and have studied this topic in depth _You have not. _I'm *telling *you what 'art' is. I'm not asking for your opinion on this matter, on which you have *no *knowledge. It's rude to try to discuss things that you're unqualified to discuss.
> 
> Drop it, because you simply have no idea what you are talking about.



Sorry P.P. but I don't think you have even the first inkling of my academic credentials. On a related note to this discussion, what do you find most effective: 1) trolling with whole dead baits only or 2) trolling with teasers until you get a rise and then reeling in the teasers and letting back dead baits? I'd love to know, since the opinions of a master troller are always of interest to me.

Anxiously awaiting your reply Master Troller, I remain,
 Sincerely yours,
Derrel


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> A camera is _not _a 'tool'; it is a machine.





> A handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task


A camera is a tool.

Bro I know you're trolling it's just really easy to defeat your arguments.


----------



## usayit (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime needs to open up his mind a bit... to the possibilities that he/she isn't always right



Petraio Prime said:


> I have seen this problem before, in many cameras. I know what it is.



From:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/206347-black-strip-appearing-images.html


  So Petraio, you sure its the mirror now?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

nchips1 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > A camera is _not _a 'tool'; it is a machine.
> ...



No, it's a machine that produces the finished product. A chisel or paint brush cannot do that.


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> nchips1 said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


You're making up definitions now. You're goofy! : )


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > You're simply mistaken. Photographers are _not _artists. No discussion is possible with photographers on this topic. You simply don't have the knowledge even to discuss it. I am a philosopher. I have a degree in philosophy and have studied this topic in depth _You have not. _I'm *telling *you what 'art' is. I'm not asking for your opinion on this matter, on which you have *no *knowledge. It's rude to try to discuss things that you're unqualified to discuss.
> ...




Your credentials whatever they may be are irrelevant in this context.

You are incapable of even understanding  the point I am making. The difference between 'art' and non-art is _*technical*_,_ not a value judgement.

Do you understand this or not?
_


----------



## usayit (Jun 21, 2010)

From dictionary.com

pho·tog·ra·phy&#8194; &#8194;[fuh-tog-ruh-fee]  Show IPA
&#8211;noun
1.
the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic

From Wiki:

Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a radiation-sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor.


Almost every academic college I know of has Photography underneath the College of Art or College of Fine Arts.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

usayit said:


> From dictionary.com
> 
> pho·tog·ra·phy&#8194; &#8194;[fuh-tog-ruh-fee]  Show IPA
> &#8211;noun
> ...



'Art' is used in a different sense there and you know it. What I mean is photographs are not 'art objects' in the sense that paintings or sculptures are.

Do you think that 'works of art' are better in some way than things that are not works of art?

Do you understand the difference between fine art and decorative art? There is an 'art' to using a chisel to make...'art'.


----------



## usayit (Jun 21, 2010)

LOL... so your telling me its the MIRROR? 


Photography - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

GO ahead change the dictionary and I'll conceded....


----------



## usayit (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Do you understand the difference between fine art and decorative art?



I know photos can be both and fine ART and decorative ART have the WORD "ART" in them....


----------



## usayit (Jun 21, 2010)

Let me help with your next response...  

"I have seen this problem before, in many Arts. I know what it is."


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Do you understand the difference between fine art and decorative art?
> ...



This is why I don't identify myself as a 'photographer' anymore.


----------



## usayit (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> This is why I don't identify myself as a 'photographer' anymore.



OMG.. he stated the obvious!  Lets have a beer party, first round on me!


----------



## Derrel (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime,
   Hey, I was just thinking...the Museum of Modern Art in New York has over 25,000 photographs in its permanent art collection. I was hoping that maybe an expert such as yourself could perhaps draft a letter and send it to them and inform them that they are all a bunch of uneducated, untrained idiots whose collective intellect pales in comparison to your intellect regarding all things artistic.

MoMA | Photography
Do you think you could convice them of the stupidity and error of their ways, Petraio? I think it would be a huge service to all mankind if you'd let those fools at the Museum of Modern Art know that the photographic art they have been collecting and displaying since they established the department in 1940, some 70 years ago, is all a sham. I think we'd all be the better for it if you could manage to convince the MOMA folks that you are the One True Arbiter of Regulating Art Definitions (usually referred to in the vernacular as the o-TARD) for the 2010's, and that your opinion as o-TARD should hold sway, and that they ought to liquidate their 25,000 photograph art collection ASAP.

Again, I remain, deeply in awe of you,
Derrel

P.S.: You did not reply to my question about your preferred trolling strategy. Please reply as to your opinion of the value of 1) dead bait trolling 100 percent of the time or 2) trolling teaser baits without hooks and then reeling those in and setting out dead baits with hooks once a fish has been raised.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > This is why I don't identify myself as a 'photographer' anymore.
> ...



LOL

You obviously don't get it. I would not want to be associated with 'photographers'.


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I would not want to be associated with 'photographers'.


Then this is not the forum to visit.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime,
> Hey, I was just thinking...the Museum of Modern Art in New York has over 25,000 photographs in its permanent art collection. I was hoping that maybe an exopert such as yourself could perhaps draft a letter and send it to them and inform themn that they arte all a bunch of uneducated, untrained idiots whose collective intellect pales in comparison to your intellect regarding all things artistic.
> 
> MoMA | Photography
> ...



Photographs have to be seen to be appreciated. Right? What better place to store and care for them than in museums? Museums hold lots of things, including photographs and art. They also have bathrooms and fire hoses in them. Are those works of art too?

You simply don't get it, do you?


----------



## usayit (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



and you being on a photographic website means what?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > usayit said:
> ...



Again, you misunderstand. I don't want to be associated in peoples' minds with photographers. I'm not one of you. I make photographs, sometimes good ones, but I don't think, act, or talk like a 'photographer'.


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> That perhaps you can learn something from me.


Then you do want to associate with us.

You're silly. I like you.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

nchips1 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > That perhaps you can learn something from me.
> ...



There are vast _cultural _differences between what I am and 'photographers'.


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> nchips1 said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


All of your posts are so fun.

Marry me!


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

nchips1 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > nchips1 said:
> ...



Show me a photo first!


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Show me a photo first!


Here's to looking really awkward while your abusive father takes a picture of you :blushing:


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

nchips1 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Show me a photo first!
> ...



You're a cutie! How old is the photo?


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> nchips1 said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


I like where this thread is going.

It was taken yesterday.


----------



## usayit (Jun 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> There are vast _cultural _differences between what I am and 'photographers'.



Let me guess.. .Martian?


----------



## usayit (Jun 21, 2010)

greetings...  "Na-Nu Na-Nu"


----------



## table1349 (Jun 21, 2010)

:mrgreen:  :lmao: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	













:smileys:


----------



## gsgary (Jun 22, 2010)

Looks like he has crawled back under his stone


----------



## gsgary (Jun 22, 2010)

erose86 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like he has crawled back under his stone
> ...




Has he asked you out on a date ?


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 22, 2010)

MEh. Silly season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## meccalli (Jun 26, 2010)

nchips1 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > I am a philosopher.
> ...



ROTFL.....gg...such fun**

This reminds me of the last time i went trolling in tobago and caught a 200lb marlin...what a troll...what a troll.


----------

