Film vs Digital vs Creativity


(Bri) #21

In art everyone can, in fact, be right at the same time. How many times has humanity rediscovered amazing art concepts and techniques that were lost to time because certain people decided that they weren’t worth preserving?

Like this statement. You’re welcome to think that landscapes are boring. I happen to like them a lot and think that sharp, well exposed pictures full of saturated colors are divine. Math it out all you want, some aesthetics strike joy into some hearts. Who are you to stomp on that spark?

This is true. But instead of trashing people for what their creative idea is and stopping them from even reaching the pen and paper stage, maybe encourage people to talk about why they want to execute the idea they have. If you think it could be improved, maybe encourage them to consider alternate ideas instead of telling them that their ideas are wrong.

BTW, Thanks for bringing my nationality into this. Classy.

Edit: *Lots to Lost - minor typo.

(Mica) #22

Everyone in America isn’t the same and it’d be great if you would stop generalizing people according to their nationality, ethnic history, or anything else.

(Aurélien Pierre) #23

You mix up everything.

Nobody is right or wrong in art for the sole reason it’s not a logical process. Analyzing art is a logical process, though. You need to separate doing, analyzing, and speaking of.

Given the amount of weird stuff that bring joy to people, I wouldn’t go that path. I thought the matter at hand was creativity vs. presets, film emulations in digital vs. full digital.

And on that, I disagree with you and every people who separate creativity from technics, because they are not inclusive, they are not exclusive, they are simply orthogonal but equally important.

90 % of the exchanges I have with North-Americans on controversial topics end up with:

That is discussion highjacking, the joker card, it’s annoying, it’s basically saying “I want to express my opinion but don’t wish to be contradicted”. So, I’m sorry, but stats are stats, and 90 % are more than a majority, so I’m going to generalize because I have no time to account for every anecdotal weirdo that doesn’t fit the description between Canada and Mexico. It’s not even generalizing, it’s finding links between people. Like it or not, you play that card far more than every other nationality I have to deal with.

(Bri) #24

I just reread through every single post in this thread. Twice.

This wasn’t a discussion of digital vs film vs anything. This quickly became a thread about what people thought creativity was or wasn’t, partially because the opening post wasn’t very clear in what the topic was. (No judgement to you, @davidvj, I appreciate what you tried to spark, but I think the meaning got muddled quite a bit along the way)

I’m out. I don’t argue semantics, especially if you’re going to take my words out of context. ‘Neither opinion is right or wrong’ was a direct reference to an orange blog and not an overarching opinion about how I approach the world.

For the lurkers out there who may feel intimidated by some of the opinions presented - as I often was in my youth - I want you to know that you should keep doing the art that makes you happy and I hope you find people who will encourage you to find the ‘why’ instead of lecturing you about the ‘how’.

Bob Ross vibes only. :v:

(Mica) #25

This is the same way other people feel when you start making biggoted statements.

Yes but these stats aren’t really worth anything when you just make them up. For someone who demand that facts written on the internet actually be factual, you sure are spouting off a lot of bullshit here.

(Pat David) #26

Some Americans might have a problem but would you please assume that folks here are engaging you in good faith.

I realize that it might be frustrating, but the study of Aesthetics is inherently subjective. This includes analyzing art.
@ChicagoCameraslinger didn’t say everyone can be right and to agree to disagree. She did point out that for all the discussions there are often those that walk a completely different path and still produce work they love (and sometimes others do too).

Out of curiosity, have you ever considered that rather than a “joker card” it’s a way to bow out of engaging you further? If you hear this often, there’s a chance the problem might not be others…

Also, can you please refrain from broad, and unproductive, generalizations? They can be offensive and don’t help to advance the discussion.

As @ChicagoCameraslinger noted, this thread has likely diverged from it’s original intent. Maybe @davidvj could let us know if we’ve veered too far away.

(Aurélien Pierre) #27

I won’t. That’s part of my speech and “broad and unproductive” only under your own leftist politically-correct normativity scope. You don’t just force-fit people into your own mold. People will get offended, that’s internet, that’s what they do and none of my concern. It would be great if you stopped trying to make things polite and superficial and positive and gentle and nice whenever they get real. Real is not nice. Real hurts. But real is necessary.

Translation : I didn’t bother to listen to others, nor understand what they meant, but I want you to listen to me because I have pure intentions and a beautiful heart.

That goes unnoticed. That is okay. That is not highjacking conversations at all. I think I will join @Elle sometime.

(Bri) #28

Real translation : my eyes glazed over when nihilism and math got superdebated into a discussion about what was supposed to be film vs digital creativity (i think that’s what it was supposed to be, @davidvj? I really dont know since @aurelienpierre is dominating the thread) and instead of arguing semantics and symbols I tried to bring it into an artists opinion.

But read what you want boo :kissing_heart:

(Aurélien Pierre) #29

Someone please just delete my account or I will bang my head on a wall until my IQ is low enough to appreciate this beautiful piece of philosophy.

(Pat David) #30

No, it is not nice. Yes, it can be necessary.
It can also be presented in a way that actually doesn’t have to offend people.

I absolutely refuse to stop trying to make things polite, positive, or nice when things get “real”. It is literally the definition of civil discourse to care about communicating effectively and respectfully with others. You’re not being “real” through your actions. You’re being ineffectual and inefficient in presenting your views in a way that promotes meaningful discussion.

Any fool can be dismissive of others feelings. It takes intelligence and wisdom to be able to communicate in an empathetic way to make your point.

All I’m asking is that you try to make it your concern here if people might get offended (how you conduct yourself on the rest of the internet is up to you).

(Pat David) #31

In fact, it may be worth pointing to an old post from Jeff Bigler at MIT:

All people have a “tact filter”, which applies tact in one direction to everything that passes through it. Most “normal people” have the tact filter positioned to apply tact in the outgoing direction. Thus whatever normal people say gets the appropriate amount of tact applied to it before they say it. This is because when they were growing up, their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all!”

“Nerds,” on the other hand, have their tact filter positioned to apply tact in the incoming direction. Thus, whatever anyone says to them gets the appropriate amount of tact added when they hear it. This is because when nerds were growing up, they continually got picked on, and their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, “They’re just saying those mean things because they’re jealous. They don’t really mean it.”

When normal people talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they say, and no one’s feelings get hurt. When nerds talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they hear, and no one’s feelings get hurt. However, when normal people talk to nerds, the nerds often get frustrated because the normal people seem to be dodging the real issues and not saying what they really mean. Worse yet, when nerds talk to normal people, the normal people’s feelings often get hurt because the nerds don’t apply tact, assuming the normal person will take their blunt statements and apply whatever tact is necessary.

So, nerds need to understand that normal people have to apply tact to everything they say; they become really uncomfortable if they can’t do this. Normal people need to understand that despite the fact that nerds are usually tactless, things they say are almost never meant personally and shouldn’t be taken that way. Both types of people need to be extra patient when dealing with someone whose tact filter is backwards relative to their own.

(Aurélien Pierre) #32

talk about anecdata… from MIT, this prestigious social sciences and humanities university.

(David Vincent-Jones) #33

Absolutely right … but it is an easily perceived trait. Face-to-face debates are not the stuff of everyday American life. We can learn from serious debates. Not only do we learn new things but we learn better about ourselves and the world around us.

(David Vincent-Jones) #34

The original intent was to start a debate. Debating is a cornerstone of civilization. I would never want to cut off meaningful discourse. I have learned and gained.

(nosle) #35

All art is using aesthetics to create meaning. All you are doing above is declaring your taste. Taste is equal to your description of pretentious man in gallery. Its an outward performance of identity. This is not a “bad” thing but its often boring unless the projected identity is interesting. Judging from your comments you are on one rung up on the ladder of understanding art. The rung where its easy to snear at the work of people just one rung “down”. Tasteful display of middle class values are amongst the least appreciated expressions in the art world. Art (proper) is defined by the art world in a process and it is rightly more interested in the over saturated landscapes than middle class beauty.
You may not feel that the above applies to you but it does.

Its fine to work within your comfort zone and great to produce work that you or the people around you like. But reel your neck in whith hurting people when you have so little to stand on.

(nosle) #36

Personally I find that a strength of photography is it’s ability to convey a feeling of reality. Most photographers acknowledge that cutting a slice of reality is interpreting it and hence not an objective depiction. This doesn’t invalidate a search for images that speak real. To me it makes it even more important and more powerful when people succeed in finding those pictures.

I share @aurelienpierre s scepticism of creativity. It’s largely a sales pitch today and much prized but barely defined or understood. I work in a field simultaneously badly damaged by excessive “creativity” and in dire need of creativity.

I also enjoy dreamy or synthetic expressions when they are any good!

(Isaac Ullah) #37

Not when the stats are purely anectdotal. A spreadsheet, research methodology statement, and discussion of sources of bias and error, or it didn’t happen. If one of my students tried to pass that kind of sloppy assertion into a term paper, I would fail them.

(Isaac Ullah) #38

All thread hijacking aside, this is very interesting discussion and I have enjoyed, for the most part, reading everyone’s thoughts. Here are my own, coming from the point of view of a) an amateur “creator” in the realms of the photographic arts and music, and b) a professional archaeologist who is paid to study and think about why humans are human.

As an archaeologist, I will say that art and the ability to create art is one of the foremost items on a short list of traits that we can point to when asked what separates behaviorally modern humans from simply anatomically modern ones. We know anatomical modernity goes back at least 300,000 years old, but behavioral modernity does not become widespread until only perhaps 60,000 years ago. The very fist inklings of behavioral modernity we know of come from Blombos cave in South Africa, and they are, frankly, not much to look at: some sctratches on a piece of ochre.

Nevertheless, this piece of ochre is one of the very first instances of artistic creativity that we know of. What does it mean? Well, who knows. What it meant to the artist will never be known, which is kind of the point of art. It means different things to everyone. Behind it, however, is the knowledge and cognitive ability to create and abstract representation of something one experienced or thought, and pass that on to others. A phenomenal capability not widely found in the animal world, and certainly not found even at even this simple level of geometric scratches outside our own species.

Now, from the view point of an amateur creator in the photographic arts, I see photography, whether digital or analog, as no different than the painters brush. My pixels or my silver halide crystals are activated to form shades in a different physical process than the pigments on a brush (or indeed as ochre smeared on a cave wall), but the concept is the same: take a small slice of my experience and pass it on to others. Often, in photography, that slice of experience is visual. Pictorial in nature. Sometimes, it is not (check out a Flickr user named Dream Art Photography. But the creativity for us lies in the way we choose to abstract this scene to convey to others our experience, whether real or concieved, of the scene we see before us. We make choices such as what angle of view to use, and what field of view. What will be in focus, and what will not be. How out of focus will the out of focus parts be? What will we obscure in shadows or blind in brilliant light? How saturated will our colors be? How will we use light (natural, artificial, burning and dodging) to direct the eye? What will the subject be, and how will it be framed? How will the background relate to the subject? What aspect ratio and orientation will we use? Will we print it on paper? Canvas? Metal? or display it on a screen that glows? And numerous other creative decisions. In the end our specific choices will determine much of what our audience will see. We will derive some pleasure from sharing this with them, and it is enjoyable to witness what they make of the scene we crafted. Will they feel the same as we did when we created it? Or will they come up with a new and interesting interpretations. Ultimately, it is this sharing of our creation that lets us get to the heart of the human experience. Yes, there is a lot of scientific knowledge involved in creation, even going way back to that scratched piece of ochre (one needed to know what ochre was, and what it’s physical properties were), but in the end, it is the experience of creating, sharing, and learning in return that marks us, not the technology, the medium, or the physicality of it.

(Pat David) #40

This is fascinating stuff. I wasn’t even aware of this object before, but now I fear I will be losing an evening later down the rabbit hole of cool archaeological information like this. Thanks!

This right here.

(Hevii Guy) #41

Umm… I believe that you took this out of context. To me it seems clear that the original statement was a paraphrase of another’s comment, not an expression of the author’s views.

Whether or not one agrees with the author’s comments, such misunderstandings and incorrect emphasis of such are very unfortunate and not at all fair.