HOME | DD
jnnifr β
curlers
Published: 2009-01-08 00:18:32 +0000 UTC; Views: 9430; Favourites: 118; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
heheRelated content
Comments: 155
Symmetry is not required for a photo to be significant.
Movement is not required for a photo to be significant.
Lack of grain is not required for a photo to be significant.
Horizontal alignment is not required for a photo to be significant.
Sharp focus is not required for a photo to be significant.
You seem stuck inside this small box of what you feel photography should be. You're blinded by any beauty that may be suggested by something that doesn't fit your idealized view of what a photo should be.
π: 0 β©: 0
You're from an old school. I'm sorry for you and I wish never to close myself in anything.
π: 0 β©: 0
of course its the fucking umbrella piece that speaks to you.. you want cliche in your art... you want recognizable symbols... formulaic junk...
π: 0 β©: 0
:/ you're totally right.....
π: 0 β©: 0
you apparently don't understand that if you have a complaint about a DD, you should express it to me and not leave the comment here.
You're criticizing my choice and not the photographer.
I will reply here but it's really the last time i do so, ... people should really just note me when they have a problem with my choices.
I've studied art and photography for 8 years now and i don't think you have anything to teach me on that matter, neither you, OR me can say what art is and what picture is better than the other.
So by featuring this as a DD i'm not saying this photo is better than other works in her gallery, but rather that i was touched by this one. It's a very subjective choice, and most probably not anything to debate with anyone.
If you don't agree with my choices, then that's too bad...
But please don't act like you detain any kind of truth inside your head.
We all react differently to things, and this photograph talks to me.
cheers !
π: 0 β©: 0
this is one of the most interesting yet simple photos ive seen in a while..
π: 0 β©: 0
WTF??? this got DD???? WTH??? YOUR FREAKING KIDDING ME...DD HAVE ALL OF A SUDDEN BECOME A JOKE OR SOMETHING???
π: 0 β©: 1
FAQ #873: What do I do when I disapprove of a Daily Deviation feature?
Please do not post commentary like this on the deviation itself; contact $Moonbeam13 .
π: 0 β©: 1
this photograph is great.. the reasons escape you.. just because it is not accessible to you and your kind-- you don't need to harsh on it... i don't click on dds that don't appeal to me, so why do you? stop being a sheep, asstard.
π: 0 β©: 1
what's "your kind" YOU are racist
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah... that must be it.
π: 0 β©: 0
I just puked a little in my mouth, but all is OK now.
π: 0 β©: 0
D<
the person who gives the DD gives it to whoever they want. Sure it may not be the greatest piece of art in YOUR eyes, but every artwork there are many different views; so many other people may like it very much.
congrats on the DD and dont let the other people bug you
π: 0 β©: 1
WTF?
This gets DD?
I didnt realise you could pay for DD selection now.
π: 0 β©: 5
you can, just buy five prints!
π: 0 β©: 0
FAQ #873: What do I do when I disapprove of a Daily Deviation feature?
π: 0 β©: 1
I saw this FAQ very often in the last time.
π: 0 β©: 0
... I tell myself the same for many DDs, but not for this one. This is a part of art, and I think you don't catch it. We all have our own interests and I find it interesting, when I find what you do is lame. But I won't complain if you get a DD.
π: 0 β©: 0
Again, this is not the forum to raise your disagreement with the selection of this piece as a daily deviation - refer your complaint to the GM instead. The artist had no choice in the matter and it is rude and absolutely uncalled for to imply that she 'bribed' anyone with anything other than her own talent. There is a niche in the art world for her extraordinary type of minimalist work - unfortunately I have yet to see one for badly exposed photos of people feeding their dogs cheese.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's all fine and dandy to direct people to the appropriate place to lodge their grievances. However, when you go sifting through their galleries in order to find something to degrade them with, you invalidate your own advice and spark inflammatory retorts that whip up a frenzied response and only further vandalizes the page of the artist that you are seemingly trying to protect.
As for me, I also think the composition of this was poorly done and is not at all pleasant to the eye, but that is merely my opinion and not an argument as to whether or not it is deserving of a DD.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, it's perfectly justified to go see and assess how qualified someone is to provide a comment on a work. I'm sorry, but people who either don't do/study photography (period, as is the case with many of those criticising) or take photographs of people feeding their dogs cheese are in no position to be so rude to a young girl just because they are too ignorant to recognise a good photograph.
π: 0 β©: 1
The term "good" is relative to the person, and just because a person does not "do" photography doesn't mean they cannot assess it. Photography is not an elite form of artwork that none other than a photographer has insight into. Art is an abstract term that falls within the definition of an individual. This isn't a photography community, it is an art community and is subject to all of the opinions and comments of all genre of artists. It is not perfectly justifiable nor is it helpful to the situation at hand to go dig up whimsical photos or drawings and decide on your own authority that person has no artistic insight. The person with the "dog + cheese" photograph has fantastic digital artwork, which I noted that you overlooked in order to gouge them. Clearly you do not agree with many of the criticisms and their authors don't agree with you but rather than stooping to petty potshots, it would be appropriate to simply redirect them. Judging from your previous comments, you know to whom these people should be reporting, so for the sake of community flow and function, it would not be so difficult to simply pass along the information.
π: 0 β©: 1
But they arguably cannot assess it to the same level as someone who does do or study photography. I would never ever assume to know anything about digital art, which is why I actively choose not to comment on it. I may perhaps, know when I see digital art that I like and dislike, but I would never go out of my way to comment on a piece that had been selected as a daily deviation as it is simply not my place to criticise it's selection. I am not saying photography is an elite form that noone can understand, in fact I find it to the medium most accessible to people, however there is still a hierarchy therein and to say that all opinions are equal is a meaningless statement. It's a fact of life that some opinions have more value and less values than other depending on their context, and perhaps one should know what they are talking about before they criticise an artwork in a genre (and by this I mean minimalism, and not photography) they are evidently not familiar with, and if they choose to do anyways, they should construct their commentary appropriately, instead of leaving a gutless message that for some unknown reason most of the criticisers seem to be actively oblivious to the fact that the artist will read them! It just disgusts me when such bullying and degrading behaviour is directed at a young 15 year old artist.
π: 0 β©: 1
This community is a melting pot and herein, opinion is opinion is opinion. My original point has been entirely diverted so I believe the best move on the point of "who is and isn't qualified to comment" is to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd just add that it should be important for people to be, as much as in litterature or maths, educated to see photos, or images in general.
the education most people have presently is through a sort of blurry mass of commercials and "obvious" photos... And saying that anything can be art down here on dA is saying that anyone who tries to imitate a chanel commercial in her photographs by airbrushing, or tries to be as good as the last shrek in his 3D drawings, is an artist ? The world isn't like that. The people who work in the commercial world aren't artists, well, most of them aren't. And a lot of photography that you see on this site is illustration. "Conceptual" photography here doesnt resemble at all the conceptual photography i've studied in artschools...
Here this photo by jnnifr is not obvious, and that's what making it art for me. Art is there to raise questions and make people think. Not make people just go like "that's beautiful, waah". Contemporary artists would most likely be hurt if you only thought of the word "beautiful" when you saw their work.
So yes, some people have an education and others don't, and we don't like the same things on this site. i'm not saying that the people who have an education are better than the others, really not.. But i just think there should be more understanding amongst the masses and that when i post a DD, it doesnt become the playground for senseless criticism.
This comment might have sounded pretentious and it really wasn't my intention, it's just that i'm tired (it's morning here)
cheers !
π: 0 β©: 1
My original point has been entirely diverted so I believe the best move on the point of "who is and isn't qualified to comment" is to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
π: 0 β©: 0
The dumb stuff posted as a DD. Man you dont deserve this.
π: 0 β©: 3
i agree, it is just a snap shot. i am rather confused as to WHY this is a dd. when i look at this picture, i dont think the artist really took the time to pay attention to composition. maybe they did, but its not a very good composition. to me this is just a picture that would be in a photo album in facebook or myspace or something.
π: 0 β©: 2
You haven't got a clue, with all due respect.
π: 0 β©: 1
haven't got a clue about what?
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not a snapshot, it's a damn good photo, but this argument got old very quick. Besides, everyone has an opinion, users commenting on the deviation have certainly made that very clear.
π: 0 β©: 1
to me this is a very generic shot, there isnt a lot going on, my eyes like to stay in one place, they don't move around the picture, its not pleasing to the eyes. i think this may have something to do with the extraordinary amount of negative space to the right side. to me this is what qualifies a bad photo. like you said, everyone has an opinion. i have reasons why i think this is just a snap shot and you have your reasons why you think its a 'damn good photo'. that doesnt mean you should say i have 'no clue'
π: 0 β©: 0
I know, and it's not like I want to be mean to the "artist" but it's just the truth. There are SO MANy wonderful artist out there that don't even get noticed! Let alone a DD. And I'm not being selfish by saying I'm a great artist, to tell the truth I need to practice more, but I know many great artist...and I wish just once they would get a DD. I know they deserve it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Then suggest them.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well I can help you.
You can learn how here .
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>