| | | -
 Originally Posted by JBrunner  but I'm not losing sleep about reaching the "average" person. They are, after all, average. and here is the basis why our opnions differ. I think a photograph should affect as many people as possible including the average person. Otherwise who are we trying to affect? Art buyers and other photographers?
-
Gosh, am I out of it. I just do photographs to please myself. :•(
-
Originally Posted by JBrunner I can't dissagree with this, Murray, however I don't make my photographs for that 95% percent, either. If one of that group stumbles on one somehow, and apreciates it for whatever reason, great, but I'm not losing sleep about reaching the "average" person. They are, after all, average. Yikes! That came off as being a tad pretentious...can your clarify please?
I make mine to satisfy myself.
If anybody, and I mean anybody from any segment of society reacts to them in any way I'm happy. Even a strong negative reaction is OK because at least it generated a response that required some thought, and could result in an interesting conversation.
Murray
_________________________________________
Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.
-
 
Originally Posted by MurrayMinchin Yikes! That came off as being a tad pretentious...can your clarify please?
I make mine to satisfy myself.
If anybody, and I mean anybody from any segment of society reacts to them in any way I'm happy. Even a strong negative reaction is OK because at least it generated a response that required some thought, and could result in an interesting conversation.
Murray It wasn't meant to be pretentious, although if you view being average as some kind of black mark, I can see that it might.
I am exceedingly average or below in most of my endeavors or measures. Hopefully my photography, as a result of practice, persistence, study, and aptitude is a place where I can be more than average. Most persons fall into the "average" category in most things, where average is interpreted to mean more than substandard, and less than exceptional. It also seems to me that most persons also have an area that they are gifted in, undiscovered or not. Unfortunately an appreciation for really good photography and printing does not seem to be an average trait shared by homo sapiens.
The flat truth is that most persons couldn't care less about the content, or process of my photographs, and do not view anybody's photography as anything more than a documentation of an occurence in time. That is the true average.
Pretention would be for me to think that my photographs were somehow so important and well executed to be significant to the vast majority (the average)of persons. They are not.
My photographs are created for those that appreciate them, and those that do, are not, by definition, average. Also, if my photographs were greatly appreciated, across the board, I would have succeeded only in creating the truly mundane.
Last edited by JBrunner; 11-03-2007 at 07:35 PM.
-
Why does this thread seem more and more like a product placement for Lenswork magazine?
I don't know of any other sponsor on this site which responds within a thread to the extent Brook has done here.
It seems to serve a mercantile purpose of keeping the thread "open" to provide continuing opportunities for comment. In other words, a sponsor is apparently manipulating the site.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
 
Originally Posted by copake_ham Why does this thread seem more and more like a product placement for Lenswork magazine?
I don't know of any other sponsor on this site which responds within a thread to the extent Brook has done here.
It seems to serve a mercantile purpose of keeping the thread "open" to provide continuing opportunities for comment. In other words, a sponsor is apparently manipulating the site. LensWork is not a sponsor of this site. Brooks is a subscriber, and nothing more than any other of that order. I, for one, am very pleased that he finds himself here from time to time to speak in behalf of his magazine, which doesn't offer him one whit of immunity from those who throw mud.
Hey, Brooks....why not consider being a sponsor? You have a large following here, and a lively forum to contend with your podcasts and editorials. If you choose to be one, I, as a membership council member, will always speak in behalf of your not being beheaded for your d-----l leanings. 
Last edited by jovo; 11-03-2007 at 07:01 PM.
Reason: encouragement
-
Originally Posted by jovo LensWork is not a sponsor of this site. Brooks is a subscriber, and nothing more than any other of that order. I, for one, am very pleased that he finds himself here from time to time to speak in behalf of his magazine, which doesn't offer him one whit of immunity from those who throw mud. I too appreciate Brooks participation. Historically he has repeatedly endured pot shots from the peanut gallery, and time and again tries to explain his policies and positions. It is a credit to APUG that he finds participation here worthwhile.
I don't agree with all of Brooks positions, but I am satisfied that they are well thought out, and offered in an honest and candid fashion. How many other photo publishers do this?
-
Originally Posted by JBrunner I too appreciate Brooks participation. Historically he has repeatedly endured pot shots from the peanut gallery, and time and again tries to explain his policies and positions. It is a credit to APUG that he finds participation here worthwhile.
I don't agree with all of Brooks positions, but I am satisfied that they are well thought out, and offered in an honest and candid fashion. How many other photo publishers do this?
DITTO
john
-
Well, then, if he's not a sponsor - he should be.
He's gotten a hell of a lot of free advertising for his business just in this thread alone.
And, they do pop up kind of regularly - perhaps on a cycle similar to the publication releases?
-
George-
Chill.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
| |
Adv Reply
