Fashion photography

[jlindstroem]

Re: Fashion photography



beauty did not start with mankind...it started way beyond that.

your way of arguing is just plain retarded.

[unknown]

Re: Fashion photography



perhaps it does.. do you want to say that YOU are able to define real beauty? Quite vain.

do you want to disagree that out view of beauty changes every few years?

[jlindstroem]

Re: Fashion photography

I'm actually saying quite the opposite. learn to read.

[Faust]

Re: Fashion photography

[quote user="unknown"]

perhaps it does.. do you want to say that YOU are able to define real beauty? Quite vain.

do you want to disagree that our view of beauty changes every few years?

[/quote]

that's a key term. you think about it.

[noerml]

Re: Fashion photography

i hate getting offending...



but maybe you should go and see a talented surgeon? to tell us if there is more than pink pulp inside ur skull. u r so fucking dense. why do
you fucking have to spread ur douchiness on all fashion forums worldwide?!

so after all you did not check out aesthetics nor talent in a dictionary.



now whether we should commit ourselves to universals such as "talent" or "beauty" or not seems unclear, Platon would give u the one answer Sellars the other... i won't even start discussing that here, and particularly not with you.

you seem to totally limit your definition of "talent" on art/fashion/beauty whatever , however totally ignoring the fact that you yourself never ever created
Something like art, fashion or beauty, thus totally berefting yourself of all talent. (damn no laughs!)



Aesthetics.. now naturally you have a point there. In, say, two hundred years people might find a huge tra....er.. stash of your pictures considering them pretty, I give you that, however unlikely. Still your point is kind of moot because it wouldn't make you a talented photographer, but a talented artist.
so they wouldn't really be admiring your craftsmen ship nor why you created that particularly piece in the first place, they would probably be admiring chance.
Besides it is totally arguable if talent can be taken out of it's temporal context; plus talent and creating beauty (whatever that is) seems not necessarily related.

i'd define "talent" as the natural endowment of a person to create. while aesthetics is the way we perceive things.

And likewise, the stool that 13 year old kid carpentered together, reminding you of one of Homer Simpsons creations, might in fact turn out to be a piece of art, however the intention of that kid was to get something to sit on. And that was an utter failure.

What you are talking about is aesthetic. What is art? why is it art? what is beauty? Philosophers of all time tried to define that, and they only agreed on disagreeing more or less.
You don't need to be talented to create beauty/art, and likewise you can be talented and utterly fail.

i told u a hundred times at least... and I do it again.. stop arguing for the sake of arguing, and stop trying to be your own advocatus diavoli.




Oh and about beauty. "No1" ever considered fat women as beautiful except rembrandt.. and not even he liked them, except for being able to use fat chicks
to his ends. Mainly compositorial reasons. that's the oldest argument in the book and just as wrong.
NOw of course our take on aesthetics or beauty, as you say,changes/d over the centuries and there is hardly something like eternal beauty, but most importantly it doesn't make your pictures better. Cuz that's what it suonds like, you seem to be trying to defend the shit u produced by tossing in this argument, without even grasping the basics of that argument.

And if you feel like getting circular you can tell us ur little "but in 200 years"-story. It won't make your pictures beautiful, it won't make you talented, and it
won't make you appear smarter. And you know why? cuz there's no message, there's no artisanry, no emotions conveyed no nothing.. it's just dumb cloths on linen.. yay. THe only message i see is.." look I did buy cool cloths, wanna ask me what brands they are and where i got them?"

[philip nod]

Re: Fashion photography

[quote user="Faust"][quote user="unknown"]

perhaps it does.. do you want to say that YOU are able to define real beauty? Quite vain.

do you want to disagree that our view of beauty changes every few years?

[/quote]

that's a key term. you think about it.

[/quote]

i dont know what you see in this kid faust, surely not beauty as it would be to vain for you to ever describe him as such, only a person working in a coal factory is able to ascribe talent to one like him

[ddohnggo]

Re: Fashion photography



this thread has the same level of talent as this tattoo.

[Faust]

Re: Fashion photography

[quote user="philip nod"][quote user="Faust"][quote user="unknown"]

perhaps it does.. do you want to say that YOU are able to define real beauty? Quite vain.

do you want to disagree that our view of beauty changes every few years?

[/quote]

that's a key term. you think about it.

[/quote]

i dont know what you see in this kid faust, surely not beauty as it would be to vain for you to ever describe him as such, only a person working in a coal factory is able to ascribe talent to one like him

[/quote]

i don't get this[72]. well, what do you want me to do? i honestly don't want any more ban talk.

[philip nod]

Re: Fashion photography



its his logic, i dont get it either.

i'll i can say is that i'm very excited to go the RO store, been thinking about it all week, and my excitement is now tempered by this thread and how frustrating it is to talk to unknown. its a mind suck. must remove from my brain.

he brings down your baby.

[unknown]

Re: Fashion photography



pnod.. its not my fault if you cant follow my logics.. its as simple as this:

talent is attribued to a person by a viewer.
a viwer is always influenced by its century / decade / social circle / etc
--> the view on talent is always influenced f not completely based on the things a viewer likes / dislikes

so why would YOU (or some other posters too) be so vain and think YOU could be the one, that sees, when some talent is REAL and when not?

I did never every say this pictures are great. never. i just wanted to see if here are some people that are interested in fashion photography. its so simple. And, to come back to the influenced viewer: other people (not me, i think they are just o.k) think the pictures are great and in fact have an expression.

o.k, if they think so. I didnt want to make pictures with a "message". Its just like someone of you said: this are clothes, laid flat on linen. Right. if you are able to see a message in them for you: ok. but there wasnt any intentional message, and i never did say anything other than that.

the only think that kina annoys me is the arrogance, that i see in some posts here. Why on earth do you think YOU are better as someone else, and YOU can judge about what art is, what beauty is, what talent is? Sorry, no one can.

And i guess.. in my eyes its simply not ok to generalize that much.. its just.. not very reflected, to say "beauty was before mankind was".. this is just a believe, not fact.

I think (!), that beauty always existed (right) but beauty is not always the same. Some of you may consider a spider as beautyful. Some of you may consider a spider as the most ugly thing on the world. As a simple example.

[ddohnggo]

Re: Fashion photography

don't quit your day job.

[noerml]

Re: Fashion photography

amazing how you mingle your half-knowledge with old wives tale. And even more amazing how u happen to stumble over certain truths and yet so utterly fail at putting them into the right context.



there is arrogance in some posts to be sure... cuz you quite apparently never ever read a book or did other research (no that was not a question!)



You talked about artists beign under-appreciated, yet all these artists took so much more effort, so much more thought so much more artisanry to produce their art than u with ur pictures, and later generations came to appreciate that or saw meaning where before was none. However it makes me wonder why our museums are cramped with art work from all time, and people can still see the beauty in them, can still appreciate it. If "talent", "beauty" was that arbitrary this would either render your theory wrong, or... well or we didn'T change all that much at all. Which way to u take? alt f4? plz!




And u douchbag.. if there was no message, why did u post them in the first place. I tell u ur message "faust told me to contribute, to discuss, so I (over)-strained my useless brain to come up with this shit. Here Faust, see how i can post beyond the waywt thread, ain't me gr34t!"
How can u fucking agree with "there's no message" and still post them. Do you want to bore us? offend us? or is that ur way of "+1"?



And what the fuck is "fashion photography?" or rather... what do YOU think is "fashion photography"... seemginly another such arbitrary thing.
DAMN NOW I GOT YOU! HEUREKA! REJOICE - EVERYTHING IS ARBITRARY! PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, POST ON TFS AND GET UR KARMA! REJOICE - EVERYTHING IS ARBITRARY! SOMEONE IS BOUND TO LIKE IT!



I am so sick of yuo.... you just can't imagine how sick i am. This is such a lovely forum in terms of how educated people are and you even manage to
spoil that, maybe there's ur talent. riot, disagreement, retardedness.

[unknown]

Re: Fashion photography



i dont think that such a board is the right place for a person that is as offensive as you are.How can you on the onehand dare to try to write such "insightful"-posts and on the other hand be so impolite and offensive toother persons, that just have an other point of view then you do?How can you dare to say you are interested in art and you have your own point of view, if you attack, in the same sentence, someone that does not agree? We as german should not be that way, think about it...

But, i try to give some reasons, although i would appreciate if you would stop being offensive and start to discuss with arguments, not with aggression.

1) Where is half knowledge? Where are "old wive tales" (i guess some old wives have more wisdom and insight that some of us together!)

2) that i nevery read a book is just not true. In my very own room are about 100 books i have read recently, and in out bibliothec (?) are just about 500-750 more.. so its just not right. I would love to hear arguments, not just guesses that are presented as facts.

3) Ehm, there are enought artitsts that never too much effort, that simply created.. and now we appreciate it.. perhaps in 100 years we wont appreciate it any more.

4) Why museums have so much art of all decades? you are right, this is true. But dont you think that there is even more what could be konsidered as art that is NOT in a museum?

5) As If everything in your live has to have a huge message hidden in it.. i did the pictures for fun, you know? and i liked them. So i showed them. The rest you writ is just not true. I say it again: please rely on facts, not on your thought. and, if you cant stop relying on your thoughts, please dont "use" them like facts.

6) fashion photography is.. as explained before.. everything that is related to fashion AND photography..

7) I only see you beeing uneduacted, unfriendly, trying to produce bad feelings, and so on. I dont know, but i have the feeling, that you try to strenghten your (not so good) arguments by using aggressive, disgusting and unfriendly expressions. I'm sorry for that.

[AKA*NYC]

Re: Fashion photography

I think this guy knows EXACTLY what he's doing and is pulling our collective leg. This is all an elaborate prank.

[Jon]

Re: Fashion photography



... too bad. A fashion photography thread could have been cool.

And I think spiders are alright.

Anybody get Unknown's logic?

Hands up! [N]