Rangefinderforum.com

Rangefinderforum.com (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/index.php)
-   Photography General Interest (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=110)
-   -   male photographers talk about gear because they can't talk about emotions (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168416)

Pherdinand 05-20-2019 06:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freakscene (Post 2889019)
On the weekend I shot some ducks (legally with a registered firearm) and had a long conversation with two men, one my age, one six years old, about the ethics of killing and the complex feelings killing brings up in many people.

Tonight, I am having duck with blood orange sauce, field mushrooms I foraged on the way back from the duck swamp stuffed with home grown herbs and fennel, cheese made by a neighbour, baby zucchini from the garden, and a nice glass of 2004 red that just happened to be in the cellar.

I find Leicas stirring, as I do many nicely made exquisitely designed machines. I have seen terrible, depressingly ordinarily bad, surprising, decent and wondrously amazing things. They all influence me. I particularly dislike being told what makes me how I am and how it influences me when the author is generalising and knows nothing about me specifically or what it means.

Marty

Oh no not the baby zucchinis!!!
You murderer

Godfrey 05-20-2019 07:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by aizan (Post 2888939)
This article from Harper's Bazaar was going around social media last week. I got to thinking about how it related to photography, and it adds a lot to our understanding of why we talk about gear so much and about photography and art so little.

Men Have No Friends and Women Bear the Burden

The basic argument is that guys suck at relating emotionally to other men because of contemporary homophobia, so they turn to women to take care of them instead.

This behavior affects the world of photography by us not facing up to our anxieties about creativity. It's a lot easier to focus on gear and distract ourselves with GAS than it is to deal with artistic risks and challenges, especially when most of the photographers on forums are men who are no help when it comes to certain things. It's a trap!

BS and ignorable.

Photographers talk about gear because they haven't learned how to articulate translate the expressive side of their work into words. The same is true of female photographers. Gear and techniques are much easier to quantify and articulate. Some portion of the point of producing photographs is that the photos are the expression that words fail at for many.

And what about gay men? Most do not look to women to take care of them emotionally: They rely upon other men to be their friends in need and support net when things are tough.

Armchair psychologists...

G

aizan 05-20-2019 07:11

Some people have said that they don't have any problems talking about creative problems that require emotional support. So why don't we see more threads here on RFF, on APUG (ok, Photrio), on DPreview, on Facebook groups, on Luminous Landscape, etc. where guys are offering emotional support on their photography, whether it's related to the business side of things or to the artistic side of things? Because I don't see the threads. Where are the threads?!

On the contrary, I do see flame wars about gear (camera company 1 vs. camera company 2, what's the right way to do X?, film vs. digital, mirrorless vs. DSLRs, etc.) and people getting touchy about the photography industry (company A is going to go out of business because XYZ, company B should go out of business because XYZ). I'm betting that internet forums would be a lot nicer and more creative if guys were more emotionally supportive and could deal with their emotions together.

peterm1 raises the topic of stoicism, which is something that I want to learn more about. I'm not sure that stoicism underlies mens' behavior in general these days; I thought peoples' renewed interest was based on it having been forgotten.

ptpdprinter 05-20-2019 07:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by aizan (Post 2889050)
So why don't we see more threads here on RFF, on APUG (ok, Photrio), on DPreview, on Facebook groups, on Luminous Landscape, etc. where guys are offering emotional support on their photography, whether it's related to the business side of things or to the artistic side of things? Because I don't see the threads. Where are the threads?

Because they are primarily camera sites not photography sites. Even when images are posted, they are posted secondary to equipment, e.g., "Show me your images with a 50mm Summicron" or "Fun with Sony Cameras".

aizan 05-20-2019 07:43

Also, if anyone's weary of homophobia's impact on male relationships in the 20th century (the focus is on America), there's this NYT article you might want to read:

The Power of Touch, Especially for Men

It happens to mention an Art of Manliness blogpost with lots of tintypes, "Bosom Buddies: A Photo History of Male Affection," which cites a photobook, Picturing Men: A Century of Male Relationships in Everyday American Photography.


mpaniagua 05-20-2019 07:44

I think this post is proof enough that man can talk about emotions not just gear :)

I think oversimplifying a person (or worst, a sex) character or behavior is pretty silly. Everyone is different and does what he/she does because very different reasons, the least of them because they can't do otherwise. Most does what they do because they choose to do so.

I can be very emotional in most fields (relationships, politics, religions and yes, gear) so I don't think that article hold much true.

Like many on this forum, I like good crafted equipment, being a camera, lens, a car or a Cello. Handling, using, and talking about them shows the respect and admiration to the work and creativity that went into them, so in a way, it jus show how emotional we can be.


Best regards

Marcelo

emraphoto 05-20-2019 07:47

"The basic argument is that guys suck at relating emotionally to other men because of contemporary homophobia, so they turn to women to take care of them instead"

I read the whole article and oddly this is not the basic argument I discovered.

EDIT - after reading the article a second time I only found 1 word relating to homophobia and it was in quotations. I did find, by clicking on various underlined words, a whole bunch of clinical and academic evidence supporting the "comedians" position.

tunalegs 05-20-2019 07:55

I have to be honest, in other "Art" industries in which I engage, it is often women who are the coldest and most focused on "winning" than on anything actually having to do with artistic expression. Cynically manipulating fans for maximum profit, undermining competitors, etc. I see more men talking about creating work that will support or inspire readers than women, who seem largely more interested in marketing and profit (and when they do talk about the "feelings" side of things, it is almost always tethered to "here's an audience we can exploit").

Not surprisingly such types get lots of support from female audiences who view "thing make money!" as the only measure of work's value these days (don't get me wrong, male audiences are just as bad in this respect). Some of these people are remarkably unaware that they've become gross caricatures of the men they purport ruined the art form, and others are perfectly aware of what they do. Men will get called out for the same behavior constantly. I've only seen one woman editor get called out for her abuse of artists (in comics), and it's likely it only happened because her artists were almost exclusively all women (said editor was responsible for the departure of almost all men from staff of this company, btw).

I don't mention this to have a gotcha "women are hypocrites" take. I mention it because different mediums attract different personalities. There are more than plenty of men in comics publishing who act the same way. In fact, from my experience no industry is more jam packed with cynical A-holes than the comics industry. If you look at one medium and expect it to reflect, generally, truths about society at large, you're misleading yourself.

The tools of photography are more accessible now than they have been at any time in the past. Understanding of art on the other hand, is not much more accessible now than it was 20 years ago. Every camera comes with an instruction manual from which people can memorize specifications. Every camera does not come with an appreciation for the history of art, nor a good eye for composition, nor a mind for concepts. Photographers are, in my estimation, more amateur than any other group. The number of people on this planet who grab a camera just to take pictures is an order of a magnitude (or two, or three) higher than the number of people who pick up a paint brush just to make a painting. I have often complained about the lack of understanding and the consequent lack of discussion about art on photography forums, but while there are few women on these forums, I have had plenty of discussion in real life with women photographers, who look at me like I just said I got back from a walk to the moon if I start talking about art concepts (this is not the case when talking to women who are writers or painters though!).


Edit: I have to add here, another can of worms to open, that photography, like illustration, is not inherently artistic, nor does it have to be to be good. One can be an excellent photographer without any artistic ambitions at all. There is no real reason to expect every photographer to be an artist, and therefore discussion about photography to be inherently interwoven with discussion about art.

charjohncarter 05-20-2019 08:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey (Post 2889048)
Some portion of the point of producing photographs is that the photos are the expression that words fail at for many.


G

And fail probably for most; from LensScratch today:

The works represented a wide range of visual narratives, conceptual perspectives and thought processes. It was inspiring to see stories artistically reframing topics at the core of human inquiry and quotidianity contributing to their originality.

35photo 05-20-2019 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by tunalegs (Post 2889061)
I have to be honest, in other "Art" industries in which I engage, it is often women who are the coldest and most focused on "winning" than on anything actually having to do with artistic expression. Cynically manipulating fans for maximum profit, undermining competitors, etc. I see more men talking about creating work that will support or inspire readers than women, who seem largely more interested in marketing and profit (and when they do talk about the "feelings" side of things, it is almost always tethered to "here's an audience we can exploit").

Not surprisingly such types get lots of support from female audiences who view "thing make money!" as the only measure of work's value these days (don't get me wrong, male audiences are just as bad in this respect). Some of these people are remarkably unaware that they've become gross caricatures of the men they purport ruined the art form, and others are perfectly aware of what they do. Men will get called out for the same behavior constantly. I've only seen one woman editor get called out for her abuse of artists (in comics), and it's likely it only happened because her artists were almost exclusively all women (said editor was responsible for the departure of almost all men from staff of this company, btw).

I don't mention this to have a gotcha "women are hypocrites" take. I mention it because different mediums attract different personalities. There are more than plenty of men in comics publishing who act the same way. In fact, from my experience no industry is more jam packed with cynical A-holes than the comics industry. If you look at one medium and expect it to reflect, generally, truths about society at large, you're misleading yourself.

The tools of photography are more accessible now than they have been at any time in the past. Understanding of art on the other hand, is not much more accessible now than it was 20 years ago. Every camera comes with an instruction manual from which people can memorize specifications. Every camera does not come with an appreciation for the history of art, nor a good eye for composition, nor a mind for concepts. Photographers are, in my estimation, more amateur than any other group. The number of people on this planet who grab a camera just to take pictures is an order of a magnitude (or two, or three) higher than the number of people who pick up a paint brush just to make a painting. I have often complained about the lack of understanding and the consequent lack of discussion about art on photography forums, but while there are few women on these forums, I have had plenty of discussion in real life with women photographers, who look at me like I just said I got back from a walk to the moon if I start talking about art concepts (this is not the case when talking to women who are writers or painters though!).


Edit: I have to add here, another can of worms to open, that photography, like illustration, is not inherently artistic, nor does it have to be to be good. One can be an excellent photographer without any artistic ambitions at all. There is no real reason to expect every photographer to be an artist, and therefore discussion about photography to be inherently interwoven with discussion about art.

Excellent points here... Thank you for a informed opinion and thoughts...

al1966 05-20-2019 08:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by emraphoto (Post 2889058)
"The basic argument is that guys suck at relating emotionally to other men because of contemporary homophobia, so they turn to women to take care of them instead"

I read the whole article and oddly this is not the basic argument I discovered.

EDIT - after reading the article a second time I only found 1 word relating to homophobia and it was in quotations. I did find, by clicking on various underlined words, a whole bunch of clinical and academic evidence supporting the "comedians" position.

After the "Dog Park" academic pranksters I would take a lot of these gender research articles with a very large pinch of salt. Still, its better than a lot of them who tend to reference their own articles as proof as to how they are right.

emraphoto 05-20-2019 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by al1966 (Post 2889067)
After the "Dog Park" academic pranksters I would take a lot of these gender research articles with a very large pinch of salt. Still, its better than a lot of them who tend to reference their own articles as proof as to how they are right.

Certainly. It would seem, in this particular case, the OP has misrepresented the authors intent and I am unsure many commentors read the linked article.

Mjd-djm 05-20-2019 10:49

I personally think that our tendency to talk about gear comes down to our origins. Way back when, when the men weren’t out hunting, they were sharpening their arrows, restringing their bows and tightening their loincloths. Having the right gear, finely tuned was the difference between eating and going hungry. Golf, shooting, photography... it’s all the same.

jawarden 05-20-2019 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by aizan (Post 2888939)
This article from Harper's Bazaar was going around social media last week. I got to thinking about how it related to photography, and it adds a lot to our understanding of why we talk about gear so much and about photography and art so little.

Men Have No Friends and Women Bear the Burden

The basic argument is that guys suck at relating emotionally to other men because of contemporary homophobia, so they turn to women to take care of them instead.

This behavior affects the world of photography by us not facing up to our anxieties about creativity. It's a lot easier to focus on gear and distract ourselves with GAS than it is to deal with artistic risks and challenges, especially when most of the photographers on forums are men who are no help when it comes to certain things. It's a trap!


That's why I didn't see it. And I'm not about to read it with a title like that.

NickTrop 05-20-2019 12:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archiver (Post 2888944)
Absolute trash, yet another example of third wave feminism vilifying men and upholding women as paragons of martyrish virtue. Of course that article is going to be in Harpers Bazaar, it's a magazine that has always catered to women. In the same pages, you'll find articles about style, gossip and beauty tips. That's the market Harpers is playing to.

No, we don't talk about gear because of contemporary homophobia, that's just nuts. We talk about gear because we like it! I get a thrill from seeing and handling a well crafted instrument of any kind, be it a watch, a knife, a gun or a camera. I also love the artistry and craftsmanship that goes into a fountain pen.

I have no qualms talking about my artistic challenges with likeminded male photographers, artists and film makers. I'm not saying that many women aren't doing the emotional work in a lot of relationships, but to say that we talk about gear because we're afraid of appearing to be a homosexual is just wrong.

Correct. Well stated. Even my wife agrees that men are under siege. This is another example. And this article is offensive and flat out stupid. She (we) is (are) concerned because we have a son. If you really want to see another glaring example, look up the controversial Gillette's "toxic masculinity" ad that came out last winter. No Gillette product will enter my home. And no Procter & Gamble product will either if I can help it.

Keith 05-20-2019 13:21

Too many people here are basing their opinion on their own experiences ... "I'm here talking about my emotions therefore it's rubbish!"

That's right up there with ... "It's snowing outside so whatever happened to global warming?"

Emraphoto is the only person who has grasped that article in my opinion!

zuiko85 05-20-2019 13:24

I was originally drawn to cameras because I’ve always been fascinated by all things mechanical. From clockwork to steam engines to anything with wheels and cams and gears. And, from a very young age, lenses, of any kind.
So, what embodies those two things? Fine precision mechanical cameras of course. This explains why from the mid to late 70’s, when electronics started to take over, even the film cameras of that later era leave me cold. I.E., the original Canon F1 is a thing of beauty whereas the EOS line with their ‘plastoblob’ styling, while entirety competent picture machines, stir absolutely no feeling at all in me. And digital!?! Okay, I’d just better shut up now.
Talking about photo gear covers a lot of ground, and hobby photography is a large house.
Took me awhile, but I finally admitted to myself that I’m certainly no artist.
.

emraphoto 05-20-2019 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by zuiko85 (Post 2889114)
I was originally drawn to cameras because Iíve always been fascinated by all things mechanical. From clockwork to steam engines to anything with wheels and cams and gears. And, from a very young age, lenses, of any kind.
So, what embodies those two things? Fine precision mechanical cameras of course. This explains why from the mid to late 70ís, when electronics started to take over, even the film cameras of that later era leave me cold. I.E., the original Canon F1 is a thing of beauty whereas the EOS line with their Ďplastoblobí styling, while entirety competent picture machines, stir absolutely no feeling at all in me. And digital!?! Okay, Iíd just better shut up now.
Talking about photo gear covers a lot of ground, and hobby photography is a large house.
Took me awhile, but I finally admitted to myself that Iím certainly no artist.
.

The actual article, if you take the time to read it, makes no reference of mens tendancy to fascination with well exectuted devices of any nature. Not only is it not criticized, it isn't even mentioned. Nor is homophobia explored in any depth.

nickthetasmaniac 05-20-2019 14:10

Again...

'You will not promote, belabor, or condemn any political or religious ideology during forum discussion.'

Enough with the digs at feminism. We do not all share the same politics or viewpoint here.

ptpdprinter 05-20-2019 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by aizan (Post 2888939)
This behavior affects the world of photography by us not facing up to our anxieties about creativity.

Any one around here have any anxieties about creativity, or all we all just in denial?

peterm1 05-20-2019 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mjd-djm (Post 2889086)
I personally think that our tendency to talk about gear comes down to our origins. Way back when, when the men weren’t out hunting, they were sharpening their arrows, restringing their bows and tightening their loincloths. Having the right gear, finely tuned was the difference between eating and going hungry. Golf, shooting, photography... it’s all the same.



I think this is essentially true - spot on. Men love "stuff". Making "stuff", fixing "stuff", understanding how "stuff" works, improving "stuff", admiring well engineered "stuff". And men tend to have an action orientation - learning to excel at the skills needed to put those interests into effect. Men are over represented in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) fields for a reason. And that reason has nothing to do with culture or "toxic masculinity" or oppression of women for the most part.

It mainly has to do with the reality that men are, in this respect, "wired" differently to most women in terms of their interests and behaviour. I am not speaking in absolutes here - we are all part of the human race, men and women, and there is a lot of overlap. Some women are the same in this respect but there are simply fewer of them. Marie Curie is an example - in fact she won 2 medals and not many men can claim that, but look at the overall list of Nobel Prize winners for disciplines like physics, chemistry, medicine etc and you will see what I mean.

OK some will say the game is rigged but then the same people say this about EVERYTHING. Historically women may have been excluded by social expectations about roles but are they seriously saying that is the case today? No. You get to the top of your field by being interested in "stuff' - how stuff works and in fact being obsessed by it.

In short, you do not get to the top of your field and earn a Nobel Prize by talking about your damned emotions all the time. You get there by being interested in "stuff". And then doing something about it.

tunalegs 05-20-2019 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith (Post 2889112)
Too many people here are basing their opinion on their own experiences ... "I'm here talking about my emotions therefore it's rubbish!"


This is known as "lived experience" among the internet woke, and is not to be criticized. ;)



I've actually read the article previously, of my own free will before this thread was started, thus my comment that I don't get the connection between the author's "men need to be more open with their emotions, but not to women" and "photographers are afraid of feelings, so don't know how to talk about art". While fascination with gear vs. actually using it is an interesting topic, I still don't see the connection to the article. I don't think boring your wife to death with your emotional baggage is the reason photographers like to discuss gear more than art.

Tim Murphy 05-20-2019 17:21

What does gear or even photography have to do with the article?
 
Dear Board,


I read the article and 60 some post later people are still talking about photography and gear?


Go back and read the article. Not because it is particularly interesting or compelling, but by reading the article you will realize that you are arguing about something that was never discussed, but projected into the discussion by the OP.


Regards,


Tim Murphy


Harrisburg, PA :)

lynnb 05-20-2019 17:41

The author seems to believe that a female approach of emotional sharing is desirable for men. As a father of two daughters I've seen that approach in action and have been appalled at the vicious social bullying and destructively competitive behaviors that characterize many young women's experience with their peers as they grow and develop into womanhood, leaving a trail of damaged women in its wake. Men often pick up the pieces. Methinks the author wears a pair of 81A filters on her glasses.

emraphoto 05-20-2019 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Murphy (Post 2889153)
Dear Board,


I read the article and 60 some post later people are still talking about photography and gear?


Go back and read the article. Not because it is particularly interesting or compelling, but by reading the article you will realize that you are arguing about something that was never discussed, but projected into the discussion by the OP.


Regards,


Tim Murphy


Harrisburg, PA :)

I was beginning to think i was the only one. Phew!

aizan 05-20-2019 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Murphy (Post 2889153)
by reading the article you will realize that you are arguing about something that was never discussed, but projected into the discussion by the OP.

Yeah, that's true. The article doesn't say anything about photo gear, I'm just thinking about how it might be relevant to this activity. Nobody's really explained why emotional support is absent from online photo forums even though photographers are doing things that need it. An art practice or business is filled with drameh, so doesn't it seem odd that nobody starts threads to get help with those things? I think the articles I've linked give an explanation of why things are the way they are, and they might suggest ways to change things. Heck, maybe there's a more sympathetic way to approach answering questions about buying gear and stuff like that.

tunalegs 05-20-2019 18:46

Give an example of emotional support that you've seen on a forum dealing with another art form?

peterm1 05-20-2019 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynnb (Post 2889154)
The author seems to believe that a female approach of emotional sharing is desirable for men. As a father of two daughters I've seen that approach in action and have been appalled at the vicious social bullying and destructively competitive behaviors that characterize many young women's experience with their peers as they grow and develop into womanhood, leaving a trail of damaged women in its wake. Men often pick up the pieces. Methinks the author wears a pair of 81A filters on her glasses.


Yes in general I think I would have to agree. Specifically in my experience men duke it out verbally or verbally and settle the issue - then mostly move on, perhaps helped by beer.

Women in groups can sometimes rather form little support groups (I have heard them called secret squirrel groups) then gossip, snipe, backstab and destroy other's reputations whom they see as competing with them. (To be fair some men do this too but its not so general behaviour amongst men except in politics where it is the rule).

In the workplace, even some women I know and have worked with under that kind of regime have told me they hate working for other women because of this tendency. In truth I recently had the misfortune of working in an organisation in which a bunch of feminists had taken over control, promoted others of their type and I have to say they were at least as vicious towards women who were not of the same stripe as they were towards the men.

aizan 05-20-2019 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by tunalegs (Post 2889167)
Give an example of emotional support that you've seen on a forum dealing with another art form?

I only do photography so I wouldnít know. But librarian Twitter is very emotionally supportive. Thatís more like running a business than doing art, and 80% of librarians are women.

zuiko85 05-20-2019 21:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by emraphoto (Post 2889123)
The actual article, if you take the time to read it, makes no reference of mens tendancy to fascination with well exectuted devices of any nature. Not only is it not criticized, it isn't even mentioned. Nor is homophobia explored in any depth.

I was commenting on the OP’s statement as expressed in the title. If I “talk about gear” it is because I’m interested in gear. Nothing more profound than that.

Pherdinand 05-21-2019 01:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith (Post 2889112)
Too many people here are basing their opinion on their own experiences ... "I'm here talking about my emotions therefore it's rubbish!"

That's right up there with ... "It's snowing outside so whatever happened to global warming?"

Emraphoto is the only person who has grasped that article in my opinion!

That's a terribly wrong comparison.
In the current case many of us prove the article's generalization is wrong by showing it is wrong in our case. If enough men prove they all individually love chocolate, then any article saying men hate chocolate will be proven wrong.
On the other hand, the stuff about snowing is just stupid and no matter how many people say it it still is just a stupid thing, not a proof.

Keith 05-21-2019 02:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pherdinand (Post 2889205)
That's a terribly wrong comparison.
In the current case many of us prove the article's generalization is wrong by showing it is wrong in our case. If enough men prove they all individually love chocolate, then any article saying men hate chocolate will be proven wrong.
On the other hand, the stuff about snowing is just stupid and no matter how many people say it it still is just a stupid thing, not a proof.



Sorry Pherdinand ... that doesn't make sense to me at all. :)

tunalegs 05-21-2019 04:08

He's saying you're drawing a false equivalence.

If you come up to me and say "you're not wearing hat" then I point to my hat and say "but I am wearing a hat" that's different than you coming up to me and saying "global warming is real" and I go "but it's snowing".


I'm still wondering about the OP's definition of emotionally supportive, if they just mean people saying "good job" and "you're doing great" or what? I feel like that sort of thing disappeared a lot of places when social media took over, and the need to always be "witty" and glib and sarcastic poisoned conversation. Sites like twitter and tumblr killed a lot of art forums, since the potential to reach much larger audiences outweighed the value of more intimate, helpful, feedback from a smaller circle of people who shared common interests. Now years later I see a lot of people complaining they have nobody to talk to, even when they have ten of thousands of people following their accounts...

Out to Lunch 05-21-2019 04:23

Quote:

since the potential to reach much larger audiences outweighed the value of more intimate, helpful, feedback from a smaller circle of people
The author's reaction to the response to her piece in Harper's Bazaar: 'My reported feature that went super viral. Probably my best work yet...". That's it ''Super Viral''...it pays the rent in Chamonix.

Benjamin Marks 05-21-2019 04:49

I find it interesting how many folks care one way or the other about a random piece in Harpers (or anywhere else, for that matter). There's a kernel of truth there: in my experience it does tends to be guys who obsess about the gear (look at this site . . . 50:1 male to female). Same with the LUG. Same over at TOP. But in the final analysis: why feel threatened by someone alleging that this indicates some broader stunted emotional response or even a targeted emotional response? The article's conclusions aren't the first generalization to be both wrong and unhelpful at getting at any larger truth.

Now, let me tell you all how much I love my 50 Summilux Aspp. And the depth of that love? I double-dog dare anyone here to call me emotionally stunted. . . .

Pherdinand 05-21-2019 05:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Wijninga (Post 2889222)
The author's reaction to the response to her piece in Harper's Bazaar: 'My reported feature that went super viral. Probably my best work yet...". That's it ''Super Viral''...it pays the rent in Chamonix.

does it mean he equates "super viral" with being "the best work"? or am i putting words into his mouth?

EDIT: her, i mean HER. No i am not being male-chauvinistic. It's just that in Hungarian (language), we don't have genders.
[Isn't that the most emancipated language there is?]

Pherdinand 05-21-2019 05:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks (Post 2889225)
[...]
Now, let me tell you all how much I love my 50 Summilux Aspp. And the depth of that love? I double-dog dare anyone here to call me emotionally stunted. . . .

obviously your love is superficial - or a lie - as you can't even spell the name of your "love" :D

busted!

tunalegs 05-21-2019 05:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Wijninga (Post 2889222)
The author's reaction to the response to her piece in Harper's Bazaar: 'My reported feature that went super viral. Probably my best work yet...". That's it ''Super Viral''...it pays the rent in Chamonix.


"thing make money!" :D


In my role as illustrator I've become acquainted with a lot of authors/journalists, sometimes directly but more often indirectly. Accuracy is not very important, getting clicks is. And if you want to take a step down from journalist to "professional blogger" then bull****ting your readers it the best way to get clicks. Often the technique is fairly innocuous - asking for an answer to a not so esoteric question to stir responses in the comments, or if one is a bit more mischievous making a deliberate mistake such as getting the date wrong on a historic event. Whether it results in helpful suggestions or angry "WHY DON'T YOU PROOFREAD THESE???" comments is immaterial. The post gets clicks and comments and that's all the site cares about.

Still better? Make a whole series of articles on a premise that may well be true, but don't even bother with the details. I remember one series of articles where the author's first in the series was actually quite well researched and reasoned - but it was a somewhat decisive subject so stirred up hundreds of comments and hundreds of thousands of clicks. So what next? Come back next month with another well researched, well written article? Nope. Every week another item on the topic, each sloppier than the one before, until the author was grasping at straws trying to find anything relating to the subject that would keep the readership stirred up. This is not exceptional, it is basically the rule in online publishing.


clicks > quality

David Hughes 05-21-2019 06:00

So I can make money from my OOF photo's? Wow! I'm getting all emotional...


Regards, David

Dogman 05-21-2019 06:14

"The basic argument is that guys suck at relating emotionally to other men because of contemporary homophobia, so they turn to women to take care of them instead.

"This behavior affects the world of photography by us not facing up to our anxieties about creativity. It's a lot easier to focus on gear and distract ourselves with GAS than it is to deal with artistic risks and challenges, especially when most of the photographers on forums are men who are no help when it comes to certain things. It's a trap!"

Okay.

So?

I mean, what difference does it really make?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:18.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.