Seems the title is just a mechanism to confront the reader. The advice to "ignore" is not really what the article is after. Its real intent is to dismiss imitation of those photographers by pointing out what most, if not all imitators of those photographers lack.
The message I got was to either give up, or do my own thing. If I do my own thing, eventually some of it will have that elusive trait called "substance". Maybe. Or I could just be an imitative hack. Yes, that will work nicely.
I personally found the articles tone a bit arrogant (for the reason Yo-Spiff eludes to) and off-putting... I've still got to read their other article on authors which i've got a feeling will be similar.
I personally found the articles tone a bit arrogant (for the reason Yo-Spiff eludes to) and off-putting... I've still got to read their other article on authors which i've got a feeling will be similar.
Actually, not so much. The author article pinpoints exactly what some issues are. It gives very good advice IMO.
I personally found the articles tone a bit arrogant (for the reason Yo-Spiff eludes to) and off-putting... I've still got to read their other article on authors which i've got a feeling will be similar.
Actually, not so much. The author article pinpoints exactly what some issues are. It gives very good advice IMO.
R.
The "advice" may be good, but the tone is definitely snarky.
The "advice" may be good, but the tone is definitely snarky.
I take the tone with a grain of salt, myself. Snarky sells, it's just a fact of life in the internet. Valid points are made, is my main take-away from it.
I'm sure the author is right, most of us are just too stupid to understand why these photographers are good, and we should not study them, because if we do we will just fall into slavish mindless imitation. Of course the arrogant self satisfied snobbish tone has us reading the article, whereas if the article had been titled "ten great photographers".....yawn.
Perhaps, but does so with a very narrow view and one that could do as much "damage" as what the author is accusing the photographers of doing. One inexperienced photographer may read that article and purposely ignore those photographers without so much as an attempt to understand the bigger picture.
The article merely takes a narrow concept of each photographer and exploits it in a sense of generality.
People who write poorly constructed articles like that simply leave me with the thought "well, everyone needs a hobby".
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mrchhas:
I personally found the articles tone a bit arrogant (for the reason Yo-Spiff eludes to) and off-putting... I've still got to read their other article on authors which i've got a feeling will be similar.
Actually, not so much. The author article pinpoints exactly what some issues are. It gives very good advice IMO.
Perhaps, but does so with a very narrow view and one that could do as much "damage" as what the author is accusing the photographers of doing. One inexperienced photographer may read that article and purposely ignore those photographers without so much as an attempt to understand the bigger picture.
The article merely takes a narrow concept of each photographer and exploits it in a sense of generality.
People who write poorly constructed articles like that simply leave me with the thought "well, everyone needs a hobby".
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mrchhas:
I personally found the articles tone a bit arrogant (for the reason Yo-Spiff eludes to) and off-putting... I've still got to read their other article on authors which i've got a feeling will be similar.
Actually, not so much. The author article pinpoints exactly what some issues are. It gives very good advice IMO.
R.
I was referring to the LITERATURE one... It's a little more cautious. I agree, the photography one is kind of arbitrary and misleading, especially in the titling.
I dunno, i found this to be a good article for people who think that just because they have a camera they're a professional photographer.
short answer: you're not.
i've said in a lot of places i'm a hobbyist photographer who figures he's reached the maximum point of growth without outside assisance/influence and this is definately a good thing for a lot of people in my situation to hear.
The "advice" may be good, but the tone is definitely snarky.
I take the tone with a grain of salt, myself. Snarky sells, it's just a fact of life in the internet. Valid points are made, is my main take-away from it.
I was referring to the LITERATURE one... It's a little more cautious. I agree, the photography one is kind of arbitrary and misleading, especially in the titling.
Oh I enjoyed that read! Thanks for posting. A wonderful commentary on art; and critique. And artists. It was educational. But if he (they) don't like my lofi, lomo, grainy, filmy, boring, lucky pictures so what?
The "advice" may be good, burt the tone is definitely snarky. I take the tone with a grain of salt, myself. Snarky sells, it's just a fact of life in the internet.
+1 e.g. "You suck at photoshop"
You're misquoting me. SPORK uttered the first sentence. The second and third sentences are mine.
