Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe

Welcome to the real world where everything is relative.

>>808840
Doesn't that kind of thinking lead you to nowhere? I mean it's all fun and games to think like that but you aren't pursuing anything... You could adopt the "only want to see the world in pictures" stance, but that has already been done.

maybe if you didnt take such horrible pictures i could take your deep, thoughtful discussion seriously. but you dont so i cant.

>>808846

every you said has already be done.
get over it

>>808850
I don't take horrible pictures? thanks. :)

>>808852
such conformism.

>>808856
From what I've seen they're quite miserable. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

Imitate what?

>Should we view photographs as photographs or should we abstract ourselves from reality when viewing one?

And could you rephrase this?

>Is the photographer just a tool like the camera or is he also a creator?

A creator, of course, in any non-purely-technical photography.

Will respond to the rest tomorrow.

>>808858
No, you prove me wrong.
Why should I prove some anonymous face on the internet something?

The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside.

This thread deserves to be put aside.

>>808865
Nice. That reminded me of some lyrics from an Aesop Rock song..

Got twenty ways to tell you shut the fuck up.
Nineteen of em are 24 bars long, the other one goes 'SHUT THE FUCK UP!'

>>808865
Do you even know context of that or did you just read it on some friend's facebook? I guess the latter, because basically you are just doing "HERP DERP IT WILL CAUSE ME SUFFERING TO DEEP FOR ME PUT ASIDE"

>>808869
cool bandwagon jump, to bad it's the wrong bandwagon kid.

>>808861

You're telling him/her to do the same thing you refuse to do, despite the fact that you too are an 'anonymous face on the internet?'

Wow.

Argument over art is pointless anyways, aside from the technical aspects (and even those can be argued pointlessly). OP is likely a troll.

Sage for good measure.

>>808882

this just in: OP is more insightful than the buddha

YOU ARE A FAG. That is all

>>808885
>Argument over art is pointless anyways
Goddammit no. Why would it be pointless?

even though op is a troll and is receiving the responses he desires, i would just like to say that i hope he dies as soon as possible. what a piece of shit op is, op if you were in front of me right now i would spit on you.

>>808860

>Imitate what?
Imitate painting imitating nature.

>And could you rephrase this?
Well, when you look at a photo you immediately perceive it as reality, that's what I do by instinct at least, but can you look at a photograph knowing its a photograph and perceive it in an abstract way?

>>808902
>but can you look at a photograph knowing its a photograph and perceive it in an abstract way?

yes. now leave

>>808907
http://tinyurl.com/28etanq

>>808909
nah, don't think so.

I'd almost forgotten what a fucktarded asshat pbj was, so thanks for the reminder, dood.

>>808912

the problem here is that you are just going to disagree with me.
enjoy living in your own world full of borrowed ideas.
ta ta

>>808902
>>808902
>Well, when you look at a photo you immediately perceive it as reality, that's what I do by instinct at least, but can you look at a photograph knowing its a photograph and perceive it in an abstract way?

I'll answer this immediately. If you mean "perceive it as reality" and "perceive it in an abstract way" the way I think you do, I've always perceived photographs in an abstract way, an a two-dimensional image bounded on four sides by the rest of a monitor, a piece of paper, or a museum wall. They carry a representation of reality, if they're good or evoke a memory they can carry the full emotional punch of reality, or a replica punch with equivalent force rather, but they've never "seemed real" to me, no more than paintings, sculptures, motion images have.

Does it sound like I'm understanding you right?

seriously op what would you do if i spit in your face

>>808909
>>808912

For future reference, LPB, you can just stick "preview." in front of a TinyURL and it'll show you the actual URL you're going to and give you an option whether to continue or not. Like:

preview.tinyurl.com/28etanq

It's nothing worth following, though, it just sends you to a Google search for "abstract photography."

Camera's are tools that can be used by the photographer. It doesn't matter what type of gear you have, it's how you use it. (yes, i'm going to get nailed by the gear fanatics in here- I know!) I know my camera inside and out, and that allows me to manipulate it's settings to get the exact photo i desire when i'm shooting.

A great photographer knows his/her camera, and how to manipulate light. that's all. When i take a photo, i am not taking exactly what i see, but my version/interpretation of what i see.

i like your pic op

>>809531

>>808829
>reading too deep into something
>meaningless existential bullshit
What are you, 15?

>>809531
I'm glad that you like it :)

>>809559
>pic related

>>808902 can you look at a photograph knowing its a photograph and perceive it in an abstract way?

There was a photo posted recently that as far as I could tell was a couple of rain/dew drops on a leaf. I thought it looked like mother nature was crying.

Warning: Watermelon.
http://images.4chan.org/p/src/1273478068957.jpg

>>808860
Tomorrow has well past, and I still haven't responded. Fuck me. But bumping so I can.

Should photography imitate what? How?

People interpret photography. Photography does nothing.

Define abstract. It already takes things out of context. Maybe that's enough. Can photography be too abstract?

He can be either. The Bechers considered themselves to be a type of modern day Linneus. They decided to categorize things and did so mechanically. Compare them to Bresson, though, and you'll see my point.

Kind of depends on the photograph, yes?

wow, I feel like a faggot after typing all that. ._.

*Sigh*

This again.

>>808861
seems like all you do is draw then take pictures of it

lol again what're you 15?

1 & 2- niether is neccesary

3- so long as there's a person viewing it, and the person interprits the the varients on paper/medium as anything other than varients on paper/medium, abstraction is occuring

4-yes

>>812775
>implying LPM is Wassily Kandinsky

>>808861
>>prove some anonymous face on

I suppose your real name is le petit faggot

>>812775
How do you want to be taken seriously anonymous?
You don't even know Kandinsky when it is in front of you, how am I supposed to feel when you say my photos are shit?
Are you 15 or something?

>>812953
so you never drew those... and you're posting them here on /p/ saying they're your work

>>808865
>>808869
Buddha and Aesop Rock mentioned on one thread on /p/?

Holy shit.

>>813181

>>808828
ｗ Ｈ Y a ｒ ｅ Y ｏ u Ｓ T E Ａ ｌ ｉ Ｎ G Ｃ O ｎ Ｔ e Ｎ t ｃ h Ｒ ｉ ｓ ｔ O p ｈ E Ｒ ｐ ｏ o ｌ e ? h Ｔ T p : / / ➇ ➇ . 8 Ｏ . ❷ 1 . ❶ ➁ /

>>808829
>Is the photographer just a tool
... nah, too easy

>Should photography imitate?
tl;dr: Maybe.

There's a lot of good photography out there in which photography basically imitates other art forms. E.g., there are a lot of photographs out there designed to look like paintings, both literally (think photos of people arranged to look like The Last Supper) and conceptually (the entire Pictorialist movement in the late 19th/early 20th century). Cindy Sherman's Untitled Film Stills series is another (somewhat paradoxical) example, where she made her pictures look like individual frames from a motion picture.

So certainly photography *does* imitate, and photography which does so can be Good Photography. But the question was whether it *should* imitate. Personally, I'd say no. But I'd also say no to the question of whether it *shouldn't*. Some photography should, and some shouldn't, but you can have good photography that imitates other art forms and good photography that is completely unique to photography and I see no contradiction there. It's one of the nice things about photography.

Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed.

>>808829
(ctd)
>Should photography interpret?
tl;dr: Maybe.

Again, no one rule works for all photography. Certainly some of the best photography out there works to interpret the world around us. I'd even go so far as to say that that should be the primary goal of documentary photography. You could argue that documentary photography should just neutrally present the scene, but the very act of picking which scenes to present overlays an aspect of editorial interpretation on the event.

But on the other hand, what about abstract photography? It doesn't really interpret anything. Neither does (most) landscape photography, or fashion photography, or a bunch of other styles of photography, but they're all valid forms of photography as well.

why don't you tell us your most avant garde theories on the matter?