Tweet
Re: Fashion photography
[quote user="unknown"]
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 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.
[/quote]
look unknown, what you're doing with this argument is very simple:
in your own, special way you're expounding a skeletal outline of
relativism. relativism is nothing novel, and, in any/every capacity has
never been a particularly interesting side to take, being based in a
sort of brick wall reasoning. there was always one of you fuckers in
undergrad who thought it was the cleverest thing in the world to
attempt to undermine the entire project of Being & Time with a
single, stupid, relativist: "Why?" --because . . . "Why?" --because . . . "Why?" (etc.) all this ever succeeded in doing was making them look like asses because they
refused to engage with the material on its own terms, and what's
happening to you is no different.
to say that there is no such thing as
talent, that beauty is simply, and solely, contingent on placement in
time, in the eye of the beholder, etc. is not only unfounded, but
unproductive. if anything, the purpose of this forum can be most
generally reduced to a process of aesthetic judgment. in context, the
relativist diahrea you're spewing yet again raises the question: what
are you doing here?
seriously.
OH, and speaking of unfounded, I would argue that if we took
the aforementioned high schooler's mediocre stool back in time, as you
suggest, it would not suddenly be regarded as a beautiful
masterwork in right time + place. the kind of logic at work behind the
argument that everything can be beautiful if placed in the right time
period . . . I mean, what the fuck does that even mean? and how,
exactly, do you intend to defend your position?
if you've got the time machine, I've got the beer.
man.
[quote user="unknown"]
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 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.
[/quote]
look unknown, what you're doing with this argument is very simple:
in your own, special way you're expounding a skeletal outline of
relativism. relativism is nothing novel, and, in any/every capacity has
never been a particularly interesting side to take, being based in a
sort of brick wall reasoning. there was always one of you fuckers in
undergrad who thought it was the cleverest thing in the world to
attempt to undermine the entire project of Being & Time with a
single, stupid, relativist: "Why?" --because . . . "Why?" --because . . . "Why?" (etc.) all this ever succeeded in doing was making them look like asses because they
refused to engage with the material on its own terms, and what's
happening to you is no different.
to say that there is no such thing as
talent, that beauty is simply, and solely, contingent on placement in
time, in the eye of the beholder, etc. is not only unfounded, but
unproductive. if anything, the purpose of this forum can be most
generally reduced to a process of aesthetic judgment. in context, the
relativist diahrea you're spewing yet again raises the question: what
are you doing here?
seriously.
OH, and speaking of unfounded, I would argue that if we took
the aforementioned high schooler's mediocre stool back in time, as you
suggest, it would not suddenly be regarded as a beautiful
masterwork in right time + place. the kind of logic at work behind the
argument that everything can be beautiful if placed in the right time
period . . . I mean, what the fuck does that even mean? and how,
exactly, do you intend to defend your position?
if you've got the time machine, I've got the beer.
man.
Thank you malador, becoming-intense, and of course, unknown.
Comment