i just to make clear that im not against the idea of people have a cheap camera and enjoying it. Anytime you criticize something you run the risk of being a big party pooper, and that's not the intention. Photography sits on a thin line between art and utility imo. When the blurring happens there's natural going to be a debate around it.

__________________

It's a setting one of 20 according to romper that allows potentially shit photographers to look like professionals.

Professionals - a good thought, they should and will know where to advance their photography in a more modern tech, however with apps like this have professionals got a head start? Unfair, yes i would say so.

Shall we all create an app that makes flash easy to use, or leave the trained professionals to the vids/advertising?

It sucks dick.

__________________
DOA FOR LYFE!

All great song lyrics are bad poetry

A world in which people are engaged with their lives and environments through activities like photography and poetry is the only aim of art - it's a better world, better society, and great work will still stand out (certainly more people will appreciate it)

These ideas about professionalism and selling a product and being "good enough" are nothing to do with art at all and only claimed any sort of meaning once art could be commoditised... It's what we ALL need to move away from - it kills so much potential before it can ever develop; stunts and constrains artists... The Grid is surely a great example of hideous commoditisation and "professionalism" knocking any nuance of flair or imagination out of these kids before they even take their first step - it's an abortion clinic for music

__________________

http://img6.immage.de/03068e2956senn%97.gif

I just think it doesn't pay to be too elitist about these things. I learned to play the piano at age 12, been playing and writing everything from guitar to drums to vocals ever since. Spent half my adult life touring, and I've put out three albums on decently-sized indie labels, and I'm putting another self-recorded one out this year. I like to think that I know what I'm doing. But I don't kid myself that I'm doing anything other than the musical equivalent of moving magnetic letters around a fridge - I'm not bringing anything new to the table so as far as being an 'artist' is concerned, I'm not. We're not. None of us are. Picasso is an artist. Van Gogh is an artist. People who go to the edges of human experience and create new symbols for us all to use, those are artists. The rest of us are just moving those symbols around. Anything which makes that easier to do, I'm in favour of. There's nothing to be elitist about.

That's not what I said.

Users' are very much aware of the style that they are mimicking - it's one of the reasons the app is so popular. I said they may not be aware of those photographers' who were originally responsible for the style that they are so keen to imitate.


I also didn't say that.

I said that users suddenly feel, after adding a filter, that they've elevated their photos towards the realm of the professional photographer.

I didn't say it makes them look like professionals.


Most people use it as you say, as with anything, some people take it far more seriously.

A large number of photography purists (with their expensive equipment and software) will always have a problem with this. They feel rightly or wrongly, that it has cheapened their industry.

__________________

CLASSIC UK GARAGE MIXES

I think good poetry is good poetry, bad poetry is bad poetry, and good lyrics are good lyrics. I think musical lyrics are unique to music. While they share so much in common with literature, you cant write a novel for a song nor can you write standard poetry. It has to relate back to the music. I thought a great writer friend of mine would make a good lyricist, i was totally wrong.

I agree that art should be accessible and ultimately everyones right. I also agree that the emphasis on it being a commodity is harmful. I also believe however that the money aspect is there to separate people by talent (on some level). Look at design. Do you want a program that randomly takes a blob and shapes it into a functional lamp? While some cool lamps may emerge, there is clearly someone out there with a knack for it. I mean, would you want apple to design their computers based off of an app? Even photography in all its easiness needs someone better than the next person. It sucks when you see a flyer for a service and the picture is totally shitty, cropped in a weird way, all sorts of headspace and pixels and so on.

Amen to the grid being an abortion clinic for music. However i dont think itd be better if there was an instant music program. Ultimately while someone is geeking out on the grid about details and rules, and someone else is finely tuning their images and aiming for the highest pop success, there is someone is out there with talent creating something better than both of them. boohoo though, that's art for you

__________________

oi, you and I are barking from the same tree, if i quoted you wrong forgive me but i completely agree with you - ok.

__________________
DOA FOR LYFE!

No I mean good lyrics are often literally bad poetry - a great many classic songs (I think most The Smiths) were poetry or chopped up short stories, and arguably very few passable as serious poetry

What I'm saying by that is the context something's presented in defines our perception of it... If Ian Curtis or Bob Dylan had gone on X Factor, we'd be in no doubt that they couldn't sing... (They'd be "bad" singers... We'd know this, but we'd be wrong)

And no, poetry, lyrics and fiction (and journalism) can all and have all crossed over and blurred every line there is to be blurred. From bands singing books to authors (Kerouac, Burroughs) reading their novels like poetry

As soon as you do that, you'd not be talking about art any more

A lamp or a piece of design should achieve specified purpose/application. Art can do absolutely anything

Talent is meaningless. In fact a lot of best art and music since the 19th century has deliberately rejected that: from serial composition (composing music on strict rules/logic), to Pollock throwing paint on canvas, to the Dadaists of the 1920s and later William Burroughs cutting up random newspaper articles and using them straight as literary prose, to present day and sampling (people making music without no knowledge of music - in fact, you don't really need to be able to hear to make D&B) ... And I'm not saying "subjective", I'm saying that "good" and "bad" are pointless terms, but there are objective ways to judge art's significance

__________________

http://img6.immage.de/03068e2956senn%97.gif

I'm not defining talent as technical ability though. Ultimately talent in art, imo, is vision. Some people have vision and some dont. Letting everyone run free to "create" (apply one of 20 filters in this case) creates an excess of shitty art. That's how I feel. It's not a question of whether or not people should be allowed. Im all for everyone having a go at art, creativity is important.

As for the crossover in poetry, music, writing etc - I personally dont think the crossover stuff is that great. What i was more referring to is the creativity and vision behind knowing what goes well with music. Its not simply slapping poetry over sound. You can extract lyrics and they may work as poetry but its not always the same the other way around.

The context definitely plays into perception, of course. Rarely is anything presented without context. Photography is so meh anyway. If i were presented with a blind A vs B situation where one was instagram and one was genuinely film, perhaps i wouldnt be able to tell. However what makes it a good or bad picture IMO is not it's "look". Often people want something to look like that thing they saw in a magazine. Its like that furniture thats painted to look old. Unnatural patinas suck.

__________________