[SI] New Mandate: Interesting (see description)

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:25:30 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"

wrote:
:
: "Richard" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
: news:tl0dm.39083$PH1.26387@edtnps82...
:
: "Richard" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "GavinS" wrote in message
: news : On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:13:19 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:
:
: "Interesting." Shoot a picture of something that the viewer of the
pic,
: not
: necessarily you, find interesting.
:
: Excuse me, but that's the whole point of all photography. Was I
: supposed to
: be taking photographs of things that only I'm interested in all my
: life?
: How silly of me. If I can't capture an image that others will find
: interesting then what's the point? I find this theme of yours
rather
: strange I guess. Even stranger is any "photographer" who would
think
: that
: it is supposed to be some kind of unique category or challenge.
:
: Well, excuse me. I take photos for my own selfish ends. If others
find
: them interesting bothers me not one bit. Sometimes they do mostly
they
: don't, what difference does it make?
: To take a photo that truly interests everyone else is a pretty tough
: task.
: Just my opinion.
:
:
:
: I find it interesting that most artists I've talked to seem to say
the
: same thing, "I do this because I love it. If others share my
pleasure,
: great. If not, that's too bad, but I don't do it for them; I do it
for
: myself."
:
: To me, this is the dividing line between a professional and an
artist.
: The professional does it to put food on the table, so he / she is
more
: interested in the opinion of others, so they subordinate their own
taste
: to the bottom line. The true artist, to his or her own financial
: detriment, always gives free reign to personal taste.
:
: In essence, this challenge is asking for "professional" shots. For
me,
: that will be a challenge, so I may just have to submit something this
: time.
:
: Take Care,
: Dudley
:
: Errrm no. I see not the mandate for "professional" shots. But, anyway
: hypothetically, are you attacking this one from your professional side
or
: your artistic side?
:
:
:
: There's a shot I'd LOVE to do, but I know I'd be attacked for trying to
get
: points by using the "freak show" angle to my advantage. While I can
pretty
: much guarranttee EVERYONE would find the shot INTERESTING, I doubt I'll
take
: it, although I may chat with the fellow and see how he feels about it.
:
: That shot could be done either artistically or professionally -- I'd
: probably go pro on it since the more artistic it got, the louder the
howls
: of outrage would be.
:
: For me, the real challenge is to come up with a professional shot,
: indistinguishable from something you might see from a sighted pro in a
: newspaper or magazine, something that is interesting purely from it's
: content, composition subject and traditional technical merit, so that's
the
: route I'm favouring -- at the moment.
:
: But, that other shot is so darn tempting ...

Well, you get to submit three ...

Bob

It takes me quite a while, Bob, just to shoot one; I'm not sure I'd be able
to manage three.

Nope, not because of the sight: I'm notorious for procrastinating.

Take Care,
Dudley

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:00:07 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:
: On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:39:19 -0500, GavinS
: wrote:
:
: On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:13:19 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:
:
: "Interesting." Shoot a picture of something that the viewer of the pic, not
: necessarily you, find interesting.
:
: Excuse me, but that's the whole point of all photography. Was I supposed to
: be taking photographs of things that only I'm interested in all my life?
: How silly of me. If I can't capture an image that others will find
: interesting then what's the point? I find this theme of yours rather
: strange I guess. Even stranger is any "photographer" who would think that
: it is supposed to be some kind of unique category or challenge.
:
: It is, indeed, a lame excuse for a mandate. It's essentially an
: "open" competition because any shot of anything is "interesting" in
: some aspect. Why it was suggested is beyond me, and why it was
: accepted blows my mind.
:
: The idea of a mandate is to get the photographer to stretch a bit in
: finding subject matter or composing the image and show some
: imagination. This mandate doesn't require anything like that...just
: pick a good photo from the library or the current month's shots and
: call it "interesting". Yechh.
:
: Still, I'll probably enter something because I support the concept of
: the Shoot-In even if I feel let down by the people who suggested and
: accepted this mandate.

I disagree. My take is that the failure of some of the recent mandates is due
primarily to an overreliance on mind games rather than on good photographic
technique and interesting choice of subject matter. If, as Tony suggests, the
current mandate is effectively "open", I don't think that's necessarily a bad
thing.

Bob

* GavinS wrote :
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:13:19 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:

"Interesting." Shoot a picture of something that the viewer of the pic, not
necessarily you, find interesting.

Excuse me, but that's the whole point of all photography. Was I supposed to
be taking photographs of things that only I'm interested in all my life?
How silly of me. If I can't capture an image that others will find
interesting then what's the point? I find this theme of yours rather
strange I guess. Even stranger is any "photographer" who would think that
it is supposed to be some kind of unique category or challenge.

I totally agree. Should be easy to find something to submit.
Looking forward to a big turnout this SI.

--
Troy Piggins

* Dudley Hanks wrote :

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
news [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 97 lines snipped |=---]
: But, that other shot is so darn tempting ...

Well, you get to submit three ...

Bob

It takes me quite a while, Bob, just to shoot one; I'm not sure I'd be able
to manage three.

Nope, not because of the sight: I'm notorious for procrastinating.

I'll respond to this later...

--
Troy Piggins

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:12:27 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:00:07 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:
: On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:39:19 -0500, GavinS
: wrote:
:
: On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:13:19 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:
:
: "Interesting." Shoot a picture of something that the viewer of the pic, not
: necessarily you, find interesting.
:
: Excuse me, but that's the whole point of all photography. Was I supposed to
: be taking photographs of things that only I'm interested in all my life?
: How silly of me. If I can't capture an image that others will find
: interesting then what's the point? I find this theme of yours rather
: strange I guess. Even stranger is any "photographer" who would think that
: it is supposed to be some kind of unique category or challenge.
:
: It is, indeed, a lame excuse for a mandate. It's essentially an
: "open" competition because any shot of anything is "interesting" in
: some aspect. Why it was suggested is beyond me, and why it was
: accepted blows my mind.
:
: The idea of a mandate is to get the photographer to stretch a bit in
: finding subject matter or composing the image and show some
: imagination. This mandate doesn't require anything like that...just
: pick a good photo from the library or the current month's shots and
: call it "interesting". Yechh.
:
: Still, I'll probably enter something because I support the concept of
: the Shoot-In even if I feel let down by the people who suggested and
: accepted this mandate.

I disagree. My take is that the failure of some of the recent mandates is due
primarily to an overreliance on mind games rather than on good photographic
technique and interesting choice of subject matter.

Maybe, but what we shoot for, and submit to, the Shoot-In is only a
very small percentage of our photography efforts. The next time I go
out camera in hand I'll be looking for 1) any scene that appeals to me
or challenges me, 2) a scene that fits the mandate of my photography
club's competition, 3) a scene that fits the Shoot-In mandate, and
4) scenes that fit some collections that I'm accumulating. (Not
counting family snaps)

I put up three images a month for the Shoot-In, but 15 images or more
a month in other venues for critique and comment. Sometimes another
15 to my web account.

As I've said before, I like the mandate angle because it forces me to
look at scenes for aspects that might not be considered otherwise.
Mandates can make you see pictures where no picture was seen without
the suggestion of the mandate.

If, as Tony suggests, the
current mandate is effectively "open", I don't think that's necessarily a bad
thing.

Not "bad". Just lazy and unimaginative.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:04:57 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

I find it interesting that most artists I've talked to seem to say the same
thing, "I do this because I love it. If others share my pleasure, great.
If not, that's too bad, but I don't do it for them; I do it for myself."


The self-absorbed egotist might say that. The true artist will acomplish
both with the same brush. An artist will decide what the viewer is supposed
to see, has to see. It will only work if you make it interesting to them.

"Art" was described to me in the following manner, long ago. Now
paraphrased with my own important additions. A lesson which I've never
forgot.

"The role of the artist is to take any image, especially the mundane, the
ordinary, the commonplace, and present it in a way that will make the
viewer forever perceive their reality in new and important ways."

If you can't make it interesting to them then how will they ever bother to
learn from it.

Capice?

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:48:40 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:29:36 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:

See the rulez page for more info:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

Oops. I didn't know that.

I've sent in a submission which doesn't follow your file naming
convention. Should I do it again with a corrected file name?

Nah, I'll fix it up. No need to resubmit.

Too late, I've already done it. :-)



Eric Stevens

"GavinS" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:04:57 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

I find it interesting that most artists I've talked to seem to say the
same
thing, "I do this because I love it. If others share my pleasure, great.
If not, that's too bad, but I don't do it for them; I do it for myself."


The self-absorbed egotist might say that. The true artist will acomplish
both with the same brush. An artist will decide what the viewer is
supposed
to see, has to see. It will only work if you make it interesting to them.

"Art" was described to me in the following manner, long ago. Now
paraphrased with my own important additions. A lesson which I've never
forgot.

"The role of the artist is to take any image, especially the mundane, the
ordinary, the commonplace, and present it in a way that will make the
viewer forever perceive their reality in new and important ways."

If you can't make it interesting to them then how will they ever bother to
learn from it.

Capice?


Good definition. But, if you don't first find it interesting yourself,
there isn't much chance you'll make it interesting to anybody else...

Take Care,
Dudley

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:05:22 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"GavinS" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:04:57 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

I find it interesting that most artists I've talked to seem to say the
same
thing, "I do this because I love it. If others share my pleasure, great.
If not, that's too bad, but I don't do it for them; I do it for myself."


The self-absorbed egotist might say that. The true artist will acomplish
both with the same brush. An artist will decide what the viewer is
supposed
to see, has to see. It will only work if you make it interesting to them.

"Art" was described to me in the following manner, long ago. Now
paraphrased with my own important additions. A lesson which I've never
forgot.

"The role of the artist is to take any image, especially the mundane, the
ordinary, the commonplace, and present it in a way that will make the
viewer forever perceive their reality in new and important ways."

If you can't make it interesting to them then how will they ever bother to
learn from it.

Capice?


Good definition. But, if you don't first find it interesting yourself,
there isn't much chance you'll make it interesting to anybody else...

Take Care,
Dudley


The interest to yourself is implied. A true artist will find it an
interesting lesson for humanity to learn, one they must learn. An artist
must convey that lesson because it is of universal interest to all. The
artist has no choice. If the subject conveyed is supposed to hold interest
for the viewer it is already interesting to the true artist. Otherwise
there's no reason to convey it to anyone in the first place.

Whenever humanity is on the precipice and crux of a new epoch in their
evolution; they turn to the artists, the visionaries, the creative
thinkers; to free themselves from the corner they have painted themselves
into with their mundane lives, trite values, and non-visionary and foolish
beliefs that are causing their imminent social demise. They know of nothing
else which can save them, so they must turn to those who were always
waiting on the fringe. The artist plays a vital role in the continuation of
humanity. The artist knows what must be conveyed to help them to survive
through their foolishness and ignorance. If it is no interest to the rest
of humanity then it will also be of no interest to the true artist.

Considering that most here only take joy in buying the latest new toy and
trying to take "pretty pictures", this message will be of no significance
to them. They are not artists, do not have an artist's mind, nor an
artist's heart. But since you asked I gave you the respect of an answer.


Aside: This is why humanity is now doomed. They allowed and even wanted
their most creative and visionary people dead during the 80's and 90's. The
very people that could help them through this present and even more
tumultuous forthcoming epoch of chaos. Even praying to their "god" that the
very people that could and would have saved them should all die of HIV.
Little did they know they were condemning all of humanity. I, being just
one survivor of their holocaust, will lift no finger to help them, and I
could, easily. This is the lesson they taught me. This is humanity's death.
Signed, sealed, and delivered ... it's now yours. There's not even one
thing you can do to change it. It's far too late for that. Save this
message for humanity's epitaph if it makes you feel any better.

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:39:19 -0500, GavinS wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:13:19 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:

"Interesting." Shoot a picture of something that the viewer of the pic, not
necessarily you, find interesting.

Excuse me, but that's the whole point of all photography.

No, that's your opinion, not fact. I take pictures of steel plates with holes in
them.... interested?

Was I supposed to
be taking photographs of things that only I'm interested in all my life?

That's what I do... I have taken about 20,000 photos since 2000, how many have
you seen? How many did I post? (Maybe 300....) Guess what, I didn't get 300
comments saying "Wow how interesting!!"

How silly of me. If I can't capture an image that others will find
interesting then what's the point?

You only take photos to show off? "Hey Marge, come look at the photos I took!
Come look! Hey! Marge! ... Marge? Now where'd she go..."

I find this theme of yours rather
strange I guess.

It was picked to counter peoples' accusations of 'BORING"!!

Even stranger is any "photographer" who would think that
it is supposed to be some kind of unique category or challenge.

Wow, you get to define the word "photographer" ? Can I have your autograph?

As for challenge, I wait to see your submission of the most interesting photo in
the shoot in!