# Photographic Clichés.



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 23, 2007)

Round 1. The nominations.

For starters I nominate Dr Herbz Peacock shot (yawny fucking yawny). I also nominate any 'make the mundane/everyday interesting' type of shot. I also nominate anything by Martin Parr (fuck boring).

And, my current 'fuck off' - ski slopes floodlit by night.


Lets get it out of the way so that photography can move forward.

Nominations please.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 24, 2007)

OK, Sir Stanley, let's get it out of the way...

Firstly, explain what's 'cliched' about my peacock photograph and why you dislike it.

Secondly... Who the fuck made you the photographic judge and jury?
I've trawled the internet in search of your stuff and and all I can find is a shite website with shite photographs on it...

I've googled your real name and apart from your own webshite and a few wanky forums, guess how many times your name was mentioned in connection with anything to do with photography? That's right, fucking zip, nadda...

You wanna talk about cliched photography... Ok, let's talk about the pricks who think a photograph isn't a photograph unless it's blurred as fuck, black and white and taken with some obsolete 1960's piece of shit that used to be a camera... You sure you still wanna go down the 'cliche' road? 

So, Sir John Haydn Colley, show me some of your published work and if I like it, maybe I'll listen to your rantings, otherwise, shut the fuck up.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 24, 2007)

Ha Ha


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 24, 2007)

Hey, I just googled "Martin Parr"+Photography (I'd never heard of him either) and I came up with 340,000 results. I did the same for "John Haydn Colley" and got 19 results, half of these were from his own website, the rest were from amateur photography sites and furums... as they say in America... Go figure 

e2a...


----------



## paolo (Jul 24, 2007)




----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 24, 2007)

Stanley,
Amongst your latest round of borish musings on other peoples work, I have failed to notice anything of merit by you. 
Actually I haven't noticed anything new, either here or on your own site, by you in a long time. Guess you're to busy 'taking photography forward', eh? 

You should just step away from the computer when you hit the red though, tbh.


----------



## selamlar (Jul 24, 2007)

Hey, come on with the naming names Doc, naughty naughty


----------



## baffled (Jul 24, 2007)

Checks time and content of OP, yup I think he's been on the sauce again


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 24, 2007)




----------



## Fruitloop (Jul 24, 2007)

Novelty as aesthetic is so last century.


----------



## disco_dave_2000 (Jul 24, 2007)

Some of Martin Parr's work is intentionally cliched I think, but I wouldn't say everything he does falls into that generalisation. I think the 'fake' Roma tourist guide is quite interesting and an humourous side-swipe at travel photography from 20 years ago.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jul 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I also nominate any 'make the mundane/everyday interesting' type of shot.



I would nominate the current fashion for taking colour portraits of people standing around looking bored shitless and blank, which I'm reliably informed is called the deadpan style.


----------



## untethered (Jul 24, 2007)

Band members sitting/standing around in a grimy urban environment (graffiti, peeling fly-posters). Not paying attention to each other or the camera. One takes a draw on his cigarette.

Webel webel!


----------



## untethered (Jul 24, 2007)

Welder plus sparks industrialism.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 24, 2007)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> I would nominate the current fashion for taking colour portraits of people standing around looking bored shitless and blank, which I'm reliably informed is called the deadpan style.


i quite like these kind of photos, the closeup face, they are interesting. i don't know much about photography tho.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jul 24, 2007)

How about a picture of a peacock on a ski slope taken by Martin Parr?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 24, 2007)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> How about a picture of a peacock on a ski slope taken by Martin Parr?



at night under flood lights...


----------



## Skim (Jul 24, 2007)

People who try to dress up their piss-poor snapshots as social documentary photography, then spend Rioja-fuelled nights posting bitter call-out threads because they don't have any talent to move photography forward.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 24, 2007)

I like the peacock photo

Tis beautiful   

so ner


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 24, 2007)

I don't want to move photography forward.  Well not without using a fast shutter speed to prevent blur.  

As for clichés, one person's apposite shot that captures the essence of something is someone else's cliché because they have seen it all before so many times and have become jaded.  

I can't see anything wrong with making the mundane interesting.  It is called seeing something new in the apparently unremarkable.  That requires 'vision' but not in the mundane sense of the word.

Matin Parr is a remarkable and talented photographer who has _created _a few so called clichés in his time.  But he was the inventor of  his own genre.  He has a big following of photographers who are informed in their work by seeing what he has done.  You just have to be familiar with the British seaside to see what he is about, where he photographs what you know you have seen but never considered taking a picture.  I think he can be compared to Eugène Atget the Parisian photographer of the late 19th early 20th Century, recording a world that is passing away.


----------



## Firky (Jul 24, 2007)

I love Stanley. He is me in ten years time


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 24, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> I love Stanley. He is me in ten years time



I wouldn't brag about that.


----------



## Firky (Jul 24, 2007)

He's the lesser version of the cantankerous male photographer. Squelch being the greater cankterous male photographer


----------



## Biddlybee (Jul 24, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> He's the lesser version of the cantankerous male photographer. Squelch being the greater cankterous male photographer


But Squelch's photos are good.


----------



## ramjamclub (Jul 24, 2007)

Oh my god, I'm a cliche


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 24, 2007)

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't photographers supposed to throw away their shite shots and only keep/show the good stuff?

Tell me, Sir Stanley, How did this gem creep from the darkroom dustbin to the 'Prints For Sale' section on your webshite?






Ok, I realise that photography/art is subjective so would somebody who this appeals to kindly explain its merits to me, because to my untrained eye it looks like a shite, blurred snapshot of something very uninteresting and the only thing it's telling me is that the photographer wouldn't know a decent shot if it jumped up and bit him in the arse. I mean FFS, Stanley, was there an earthquake at the time or is there some other reason for the lack of clarity/definition, maybe a dash too much vino, eh?

What do you think, Stanley, should we start a poll to see which of these two shots people would rather have hanging on their wall? 






Bear in mind, my peacock shot is merely a snapshot that was taken hand held with the wrong lens and of a difficult subject whilst your's is a work of art that you're charging good money for 

I think I've noticed a pattern in your drunken rantings, Stanley, it appears to me that you're just a little bitter. Is this because you never made it as a photographer or is it the realisation that you never will?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 24, 2007)

Why do some people think their ego makes their art better?

Because it doesn't.

It seems often ego is a substitution for art.

My ego fluctuates between large and non-existent. 

Think what you will of my art.


----------



## stat (Jul 24, 2007)

I've posted when pissed before and regretted it... I haven't been paying attention to any earlier disagreements but I think OP's probably got the point...


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 24, 2007)

i dunno... i am more interested in wasteland than peacocks... they're both just photos though aren't they it's not like judging a painting painting?


----------



## untethered (Jul 24, 2007)

rutabowa said:
			
		

> i dunno... i am more interested in wasteland than peacocks... they're both just photos though aren't they it's not like judging a painting painting?



The peacock photo is better because while it's not the greatest peacock photo ever, it's a much easier subject.

The wasteland photo isn't great. Wasteland is probably harder to do well. I quite like photos of off-beat subjects but that one says nothing in particular and the composition is extremely pedestrian.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 24, 2007)

well me personally i liked the wasteland one better. tho i woudl imagine it was part of a series.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 24, 2007)

Actually I prefere Stan's picture.

To be fair, IMO he's actually a damn good landscape photographer and I think a lot of his stuff is very, very good.

It's just a shame he seems to have abandoned this talent of late, prefering to lurch around here posting drunken opinionated shite.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 24, 2007)

Dr_Herbz said:
			
		

> Ok, I realise that photography/art is subjective so would somebody who this appeals to kindly explain its merits to me, because to my untrained eye it looks like a shite, blurred snapshot of something very uninteresting and the only thing it's telling me is that the photographer wouldn't know a decent shot if it jumped up and bit him in the arse. I mean FFS, Stanley, was there an earthquake at the time or is there some other reason for the lack of clarity/definition, maybe a dash too much vino, eh?




Plus, I think you might want to wind your neck in now Dr. as this sort of thing just kind of undermines your original retort, because is actually bollocks as well.


----------



## baffled (Jul 24, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Actually I prefere Stan's picture.
> 
> To be fair, IMO he's actually a damn good landscape photographer and I think a lot of his stuff is very, very good.
> 
> It's just a shame he seems to have abandoned this talent of late, prefering to lurch around here posting drunken opinionated shite.



^

Seems to be about right.


----------



## Firky (Jul 24, 2007)

rutabowa said:
			
		

> i dunno... i am more interested in wasteland than peacocks... they're both just photos though aren't they it's not like judging a painting painting?



I prefer Stanley's photograph but I am a fan of stuff like that - where is the shot of herbz' peakcock is just exactly that. A photograph of a peacock!

Different strokes and that.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 24, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> I prefer Stanley's photograph but I am a fan of stuff like that - where is the shot of herbz' peakcock is just exactly that. A photograph of a peacock!
> 
> Different strokes and that.



That's exactly what I was trying to put across. Just because somebody doesn't like the style/genre of a photograph, does this make it a bad photograph? 
I know the shot of the peacock is nothing special and the only reason I posted it was because JC2 said he hated birds.
I'm going to bite the bullet here and admit that I liked some of Stanley's photographs and yes, he is a decent landscape photographer but regardless of how good he is, it doesn't give him the right to post opinionated shite about other people's shots.


----------



## Firky (Jul 24, 2007)

No but I come from the camp where if you're putting a photograph in the public arena then you have to be ready to accept people like Stanley's rioja fuelled rants. I've been the subject to his vitirol too - its sweet. He actually noticed me albeit for all the wrong reasons


----------



## ramjamclub (Jul 24, 2007)

Agree with firky here. The people who can't judge a photo properly for it's worth: Lighting, composition , subject etc,  are not worth getting excited about.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 24, 2007)

ramjamclub said:
			
		

> The people who can't judge a photo properly for it's worth


ie "the general public", you would say?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 24, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> No but I come from the camp where if you're putting a photograph in the public arena then you have to be ready to accept people like Stanley's rioja fuelled rants.



I argree entirely. But Stan's rioja fuelled rants have become somewhat disjointed, a tad malicious & a bit too sneery to be taken very seriously recently.


----------



## ramjamclub (Jul 24, 2007)

rutabowa said:
			
		

> ie "the general public", you would say?


Yes, they love cliches. Sunsets, sweet babies, cats etc.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 24, 2007)

Excellent. Lots of responses and someone who's not afraid to speak their mind  

The reason I posted was after reading something Martin Parr had written about Flickr. He said Flickr would be mostly cliches, but he also seemed to refuse to acknowledge that there was also some very good photography on Flickr. He was very patronising to his own fans. Said people only posted images there to be seen as photographers.

Anyway, more cliches please.

I'm nominating clothes pegs and washing lines in any form whatsoever  


As for Dr Herbz initial reaction; it was much as I suspected  

The stuff on my site is all quite old. 321 Spaces was exhibited in London about Five years ago. It got a Four page feature in Professional Photographer as well as features in low circulation arts and charity publications.

The Berlin set was shortlisted for the British Journal of Photography Portfolio award about Three years ago.

The Andalusia road trip set (which are not negatives - you're supposed to click to view large positives) was recently featured in a US publication I know nothing about. All I know is that it generated some very interesting, big money commissions. I've had plenty of work published in Spanish publications recently also.

Photography and art is very subjective. I don't expect everyone to get my work. It really doesn't bother me when people don't. When they slag it off it's no problem. Always better to get a reaction of some kind rather than none at all.

I also nominate graffiti shots. Shots of graffiti that are of nothing else.


----------



## Firky (Jul 24, 2007)

I'll take your graffiti shots and raise you an architecture shot


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 24, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Stanley,
> Amongst your latest round of borish musings on other peoples work, I have failed to notice anything of merit by you.
> Actually I haven't noticed anything new, either here or on your own site, by you in a long time. Guess you're to busy 'taking photography forward', eh?
> 
> You should just step away from the computer when you hit the red though, tbh.




Blimey. I wasn't even drinking last night!

I have posted recent stuff here. My website does state that I expect to update by the end of September. Despite the work being old it still looks encouragingly fresh to me.

I think I posted this as a recent shot:






I'm very happy with it. It's charged with mystery and mood. It asks the viewer to ask questions. Don't mind at all if you think it has no merit  

Saturday I was photographing opera stars of future and past. Did some very nice documentary stuff and got to photograph Teresa Berganza in an informal portrait style.


----------



## baffled (Jul 24, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> I'll take your graffiti shots and raise you an architecture shot




No graffiti wins.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 24, 2007)

ramjamclub said:
			
		

> Yes, they love cliches. Sunsets, sweet babies, cats etc.


i guess you are being ironic here... but i can't tell what you actually think.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Martin Parr had written about Flickr. He said Flickr would be mostly cliches, but he also seemed to refuse to acknowledge that there was also some very good photography on Flickr. He was very patronising to his own fans. Said people only posted images there to be seen as photographers.



It's widely accepted that Parr's a total fucking snob & a tosser too though. 
I had him as a tutor on my degree and he was an arse. He critisised my final work saying that I hadn't done anything particuarly different for the past two years - I told him that that was fucking rich coming from him. Didn't really get on after that


----------



## ramjamclub (Jul 24, 2007)

Obviously throughout the previous decades there have been photographic syles and trends that we have followed. The grainy b/w pop artist, The Cokin filter trend in the early 80's, The "Face" portraits. Looking at some of my earlier work i recognise this element of trend following. Hopefully we try to find our own twist, style whatever you want to call it. I've dropped my serious photography for video filming but some photographic tricks are still there in my films.


----------



## baffled (Jul 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Blimey. I wasn't even drinking last night!
> 
> I think I posted this as a recent shot:
> 
> ...



Even as a relative noob round here sometimes I do question whether your comments are as a result of a drink or not (maybe I've misread the image you have portrayed)

FWIW I did comment on that shot and thought it had tons of mood.


----------



## ramjamclub (Jul 24, 2007)

For me it needs cropping on the right hand side. The small reflections are distracting


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 24, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> Even as a relative noob round here sometimes I do question whether your comments are as a result of a drink or not (maybe I've misread the image you have portrayed)
> ...



No. You're right. I am a drunken arse sometimes. The sterile world of internet forums where people just say nothing or, say something nice bores me. Especially when people are posting images up for comment. Sometimes I just think 'arghhh - fuck it. You superficial bunch of none thinking fuckers'.

I post whatever I feel may get a reaction. Good or, bad. Anything than a repetition of everyone licking each others arses.

Just for the record, I never actually said Dr Herbz's photo was bad. I just used as an example of a cliched photograph. I think every lens and camera of the 70's and 80's was sold by a shot of a peacock at some point.

Anyway, more cliches?

I posted this quite successfully on a photography forum a couple of years back. They came up with some very good ones.


----------



## baffled (Jul 24, 2007)

I titled this as I did for a reason  

*Horribly Hackneyed*






But it was something I wanted to have a go at once the opportunity arose.

oh and slow shutter speeds when shooting water, but I know given the chance I'll do it again


----------



## baffled (Jul 24, 2007)

I suppose you have to ask yourself, or the person ask themselves, whether they are presenting an image as art (original or not) or do they like creating aesthetically pleasing images while not having a clue about art (as is my case).

Sometimes you lot scare me when discussing art/photography.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 24, 2007)

ramjamclub said:
			
		

> For me it needs cropping on the right hand side. The small reflections are distracting



Yeah, I think it's a nice shot, but would have been better had it been taken closer to the subject perhaps from a lower angle and with the lights above him. Of course often with street photography you make the best of the situation in front of you so it probably wasn't possible.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 24, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> I suppose you have to ask yourself, or the person ask themselves, whether they are presenting an image as art (original or not) or do they like creating aesthetically pleasing images while not having a clue about art (as is my case).
> 
> Sometimes you lot scare me when discussing art/photography.



In the environment of this board it doesn't bother me. People post on here i think for fun, people post on here of varying levels of interest and ability. I get bored by the whole 'art' side of photography and the neverending navel gazing, belly fluff picking debate that revolves around them. 

And to be honest i get bored shitless when people pontificate over photography as art and start musing about certain aspects of it. I did a graphic design BA and got bored of wankers dreaming up all kinds of reasons as to why a certain colour was used or what they were "trying to get across".

Sure, there's no point in taking the same photos all the time and no point in producing cliched photo after cliched photo, but that's not to say cliched photos cant be good ones.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 24, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> I suppose you have to ask yourself, or the person ask themselves, whether they are presenting an image as art (original or not) or do they like creating aesthetically pleasing images while not having a clue about art (as is my case).
> 
> Sometimes you lot scare me when discussing art/photography.



Ditto... I'm not attempting to portray myself as an artist but if something catches my eye and I have the camera with me, I'll take a photograph.

All my past photography has been of what I know, cars. The past couple of months have been my first attempt at photographing anything that wasn't coming sideways round a bend so anything I've posted here is new ground for me. 

Stanley, I never studied photography or other people's photographs so I wouldn't have a clue what is or isn't clichéd. To me, almost every shot I take is new territory, regardless of whether or not other people have done it previously.

And for what it's worth, I realised you picked my peacock shot because you knew/hoped it would get a strong reaction... I didn't want to disappoint you?


----------



## baffled (Jul 24, 2007)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> In the environment of this board it doesn't bother me. People post on here i think for fun, people post on here of varying levels of interest and ability. I get bored by the whole 'art' side of photography and the neverending navel gazing, belly fluff picking debate that revolves around them.
> 
> And to be honest i get bored shitless when people pontificate over photography as art and start musing about certain aspects of it. I did a graphic design BA and got bored of wankers dreaming up all kinds of reasons as to why a certain colour was used or what they were "trying to get across".
> 
> Sure, there's no point in taking the same photos all the time and no point in producing cliched photo after cliched photo, but that's not to say cliched photos cant be good ones.



I'm with you but then I wonder if I should be posting here at all as I have no interest in art as a subject but I do enjoy looking at other peoples images and I like creating images of my own.


I LikE MAke PreTtY PIctUrES


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 24, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> I'm with you but then I wonder if I should be posting here at all as I have no interest in art as a subject but I do enjoy looking at other peoples images and I like creating images of my own.
> 
> 
> I LikE MAke PreTtY PIctUrES



There's no disclaimer on here, do as you wish!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 24, 2007)

The last thing I worry about when taking pictures is making clichés.  If you think about that you will become very self-conscious and hesitant.  Just get on with it and be spontaneous.  The obsession with originality is a distraction.  In fact I might even see if I can deliberately take a few clichéd pictures in the next few days.  I don't think I will be able to bring myself to do sunsets mind


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Round 1. The nominations.
> 
> For starters I nominate Dr Herbz Peacock shot (yawny fucking yawny). I also nominate any 'make the mundane/everyday interesting' type of shot. I also nominate anything by Martin Parr (fuck boring).
> 
> ...



I nominate your Spanish holiday photos.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 24, 2007)

I can't take part in this discussion: it's too self important, pretentious.


----------



## untethered (Jul 24, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I can't take part in this discussion: it's too self important, pretentious.



I see your point. 

I'm starting one on "how can we best help the poor?" soon so you can join in with that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 24, 2007)

This is a thread thought up by somebody when he was drunk. I'd rather have my head encased in a plastic bag filled with cotton batting, than carry out an analysis of what is a 'cliche' in photography, but by all means, carry on without me.


----------



## baffled (Jul 24, 2007)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> There's no disclaimer on here, do as you wish!



I know and TBH I'm being meoldramatic after having a few drinks myself, but I stand by the fact that it can be a little intimidating posting images here if you have no artistic background and also recognise that if you put it into a public arena it will be critqued.

Still scares me though


----------



## cybertect (Jul 24, 2007)

Dr_Herbz said:
			
		

> All my past photography has been of what I know, cars.



Ah, the magazine 'tilt' shot. 

In fact, photographing cars is a bloody minefield of clichés. The 3/4 shot. Panned shot at speed, car in moody underground location, car in gritty graffiti location, totty spread over bonnet etc.

Rig shots done by Easton Chang were amazing even a couple of years back. Now even I'm dabbling with them and they're heading rapidly toward cliché status.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 24, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> This is a thread thought up by somebody when he was drunk. I'd rather have my head encased in a plastic bag filled with cotton batting, than carry out an analysis of what is a 'cliche' in photography, but by all means, carry on without me.




Will do thanks. You're getting incredibly dull. I wasn't drunk when I started this thread. It is actually a very widely debated subject in the world of photography ATM. With everyone and anyone able to pick up a digi auto and shoot anything and everything the question of originality becomes even more important.

Clichés in my book are any safe, unchallenging images that you know are good because someone has taken the shot before and published it and had it validated as being good by people who know how to tell other people what is good and not good.

A sunset shot for me is not a cliché. There are many 'just another sunset' type photographs, but there are also 'wow - a very different type of sunset' type shots.

It's just about original thought and how you photograph that original thought.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Will do thanks. You're getting incredibly dull. I wasn't drunk when I started this thread. It is actually a very widely debated subject in the world of photography ATM..



Oh, I'm sure it is. 

And if you weren't drunk, you should be ashamed of your tacky behaviour in holding up some other poster's photo as your example of what is bad/cliche. Such rude behaviour might be forgiven a drunk.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Clichés in my book are any safe, unchallenging images that you know are good because someone has taken the shot before and published it and had it validated as being good by people who know how to tell other people what is good and not good..



What are you talking about? There are 'subjects', and 'shots/images'.

You can have shots of differing quality, all of the same subject.

Get your terminology in order: what is it that's cliche: a style of shot, or a subject?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> It's just about original thought and how you photograph that original thought.



You don't photograph thoughts. You photograph subjects/objects, and employ thought in portraying the subject/object in a novel manner, if that's your goal.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 24, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> You don't photograph thoughts. You photograph subjects/objects, and employ thought in portraying the subject/object in a novel manner, if that's your goal.



I said 'carry on without you'. You're a boring tosser.


----------



## Skim (Jul 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> The sterile world of internet forums where people just say nothing or, say something nice bores me. Especially when people are posting images up for comment. Sometimes I just think 'arghhh - fuck it. You superficial bunch of none thinking fuckers'.
> 
> I post whatever I feel may get a reaction. Good or, bad. Anything than a repetition of everyone licking each others arses.



All that is fair enough – polite circle-jerking gets boring. But it's a shame you have to start an otherwise good thread by attacking another poster, calling his shot "yawny fucking yawny". 

There's lots of helpful advice/comments in this forum if you ask for it, some positive and some negative. I don't think it's overly polite or superficial. It's just in more of a constructive tone instead of pointlessly belittling another poster's work.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 24, 2007)

Skim said:
			
		

> All that is fair enough – polite circle-jerking gets boring. But it's a shame you have to start an otherwise good thread by attacking another poster, calling his shot "yawny fucking yawny".
> 
> There's lots of helpful advice/comments in this forum if you ask for it, some positive and some negative. I don't think it's overly polite or superficial. It's just in more of a constructive tone instead of pointlessly belittling another poster's work.





FFS get a grip. I think the photograph is boring (yawny). So fucking what?

How on earth is that construed as attacking? I'm just expressing a very simple opinion. Why take it so hard? What the fuck does it matter. I wouldn't (and don't) give a shit if someone expresses an opinion that my photography is boring. Why do other people? I just don't get it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I said 'carry on without you'. You're a boring tosser.




Best way to do that, is not to reply to me. If you do, I will.

You're a boring, and often drunken tosser.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> FFS get a grip. I think the photograph is boring (yawny). So fucking what?
> 
> How on earth is that construed as attacking? I'm just expressing a very simple opinion. Why take it so hard? What the fuck does it matter. I wouldn't (and don't) give a shit if someone expresses an opinion that my photography is boring. Why do other people? I just don't get it.



It was rude to say: "Let's talk about cliched photography: for example, look at this picture by Dr. Herbz."

Why not be a man, and apologize?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> FFS get a grip. I think the photograph is boring (yawny). So fucking what?
> 
> How on earth is that construed as attacking? I'm just expressing a very simple opinion. Why take it so hard? What the fuck does it matter. I wouldn't (and don't) give a shit if someone expresses an opinion that my photography is boring. Why do other people? I just don't get it.


i doubt few people are as concieted as you are....


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 24, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> i doubt few people are as concieted as you are....



Erm... they obviously are. Or, else they wouldn't be so offended. 

I've been exhibiting for over 20 years. I'm used to the critiques. I can ignore them. And, and this is a big and, if we don't believe in ourselves how the fuck do we expect others to believe in us?

Anyway, back to clichés:

Young boys pointing toy guns at cameras.

Fuck shit boring. Especially when they're lies


----------



## mauvais (Jul 24, 2007)

Heh. This is a quality thread, made all the better for it largely flying under the radar


----------



## wordie (Jul 24, 2007)

What a bunch of total toss...!


----------



## paolo (Jul 25, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I've been exhibiting for over 20 years.



omg.


----------



## alef (Jul 25, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I've been exhibiting for over 20 years.



Feels like you've been starting threads in this forum for 20 years. Another cliché: pretending to be talking about 'big' photography issues when in fact looking to yet again talk about yourself.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 25, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I can't take part in this discussion: it's too self important, pretentious.



Then don't.
Keep your word and let us carry on without you, you tedious fuck.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 25, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Sometimes I just think 'arghhh - fuck it. You superficial bunch of none thinking fuckers'.



And herin lies the rub:
You are arrogant Stanley - for better or worse, and you think that you are the only one in the world who 'gets it' and everyone else is some kind of monothought fuckwit.
Get the fuck over yourself. You've chosen a path for yourself & it's one you like - fine, well done - round of fucking applause. 
Why don't you now try having a bit of respect for the way other people live their lives and think their thoughts as well?


----------



## Firky (Jul 25, 2007)

All of my photos are great and loved by everyone. In fact I would go insofar as to say that I have never taken a poor photograph in my life. IMO


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 25, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> All of my photos are great and loved by everyone. In fact I would go insofar as to say that I have never taken a poor photograph in my life. IMO



'Tis true.
The whole world squeals with delight when you reveal another of your B&W infa red photoshop abortions - we love it.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 25, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> And herin lies the rub:
> You are arrogant Stanley - for better or worse, and you think that you are the only one in the world who 'gets it' and everyone else is some kind of monothought fuckwit.
> Get the fuck over yourself. You've chosen a path for yourself & it's one you like - fine, well done - round of fucking applause.
> Why don't you now try having a bit of respect for the way other people live their lives and think their thoughts as well?




thank you for expressing clearly what i wanted to say when he came stinking up a thread of mine with his sneering.


----------



## Mungy (Jul 25, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> 'Tis true.
> The whole world squeals with delight when you reveal another of your B&W infa red photoshop abortions - we love it.



i've been wondering what _that_ noise was. i thought my case fan had squeaky bearings or something.


----------



## alef (Jul 25, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> And herin lies the rub:
> You are arrogant Stanley - for better or worse, and you think that you are the only one in the world who 'gets it' and everyone else is some kind of monothought fuckwit.
> Get the fuck over yourself. You've chosen a path for yourself & it's one you like - fine, well done - round of fucking applause.
> Why don't you now try having a bit of respect for the way other people live their lives and think their thoughts as well?



On an immediate level you're spot on, but perhaps deeper it's quite the reverse. Snobbery is often about seeking self recognition. If he were genuinely happy with his own photos and life choices then presumably he wouldn't be starting countless threads forcing them upon us trying to seek approval.

Arrogance is usually more a reflection of insecurity than a genuine sense of superiority. Problem is that SE doesn't have enough wit to make his pomposity amusing. My usual response is to simply ignore his threads and respond to the worthwhile ones here in photography since I fear get dragged in to a pointless personal attack, oh well nevermind...


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 25, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> perhaps deeper it's quite the reverse. Snobbery is often about seeking self recognition. If he were genuinely happy with his own photos and life choices then presumably he wouldn't be starting countless threads forcing them upon us trying to seek approval.
> 
> Arrogance is usually more a reflection of insecurity than a genuine sense of superiority.



I hear you, but I also believe that Stan _is_ happy with his life at the moment. 
He's made an incredibly dramatic life change over the past 2 years - one that I actually admire. My take on it is that he's still very high on it.
I just wish he'd calm the fuck down now, get over it and begin doing what he's good at again, which is taking thoughtful & bloody good photographs.

You think you've got everyone's number Stanley, well maybe this thread will show you that some people have yours too.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 25, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> And herin lies the rub:
> You are arrogant Stanley - for better or worse, and you think that you are the only one in the world who 'gets it' and everyone else is some kind of monothought fuckwit.
> Get the fuck over yourself. You've chosen a path for yourself & it's one you like - fine, well done - round of fucking applause.
> Why don't you now try having a bit of respect for the way other people live their lives and think their thoughts as well?



Well said and thanks, you saved me the trouble of typing something similar out.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 25, 2007)

So, anymore clichés for nomination?


I still don't get it. Why have so many people been offended by my opening post? I'm beginning to understand where Martin Parr's views came from now. I use Dr Herbz's photo as an example of a photographic cliché. He feels it necessary to defend by dissing me and my photographs. Not once have I said anyone's photography is bad. The more sensitive amongst you start using the thread to have a pop at me. 

I recognise that I may come across as being an arrogant tosser at times. When it comes to making a living from photography as art and other art you have to have a lot of self-belief. The shit you have to take comes thick and fast. You get used to it. Maybe I should try being a little bit more humble or, posting loads of life gripes in Sobbing & Shagging rather than just reporting the good things.

Anyway, photographic Clichés is what the thread was supposed to be about. How the fuck my initial post comes across as being some sort sneering, intellectually elitist snipe is way beyond me. I posted here because, on the whole, there is a higher level of interest and thought on such matters.

Over sensitive bunch of sun deprived fuckers the lot of you.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2007)

Dr_Herbz said:
			
		

> I know the shot of the peacock is nothing special and the only reason I posted it was because JC2 said he hated birds.



I'm afraid the debate is over my head but I have to say this sounds good enough reason to me.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 25, 2007)

those photos of city traffic at night with all the lights of the cars streaking... mind you i do like a lot of those photos.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 25, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> So, anymore clichés for nomination?
> 
> 
> I still don't get it. Why have so many people been offended by my opening post? I'm beginning to understand where Martin Parr's views came from now. I use Dr Herbz's photo as an example of a photographic cliché. He feels it necessary to defend by dissing me and my photographs. Not once have I said anyone's photography is bad. The more sensitive amongst you start using the thread to have a pop at me.
> ...




Stanley

You're talented but you have quite a spiteful streak in you that results in you sometimes being malicious and sadistic to other people.

If talented people are kind, then they can offer support, encouragement and words of wisdom to those whose talents are less developed. 

It's like the child who has all the toys letting the other kids play with them and enjoy them.  

However if that fortunate child keeps all the toys for himself, doesn't even have time to play with them because he's too busy tormenting the other kids then he ends up looking like a bit of a ****

Or something

eta

should really be some of the toys, some great exciting ones, not all of them

and he slags off other people's toys

Or something


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 25, 2007)

Jesus bloody wept.

I am not spiteful. How the fuck am I being spiteful  

Perhaps, as I've been taking criticism from others for so long I have become a little desensitised to the feeling of whatever it is people seem to feel if they are criticised in any way  

Fuck knows. It's beyond me.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 25, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Fuck knows. It's beyond me.



An empathy problem?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 25, 2007)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> An empathy problem?



Badly formed frontal lobe.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> So, anymore clichés for nomination?
> 
> 
> I still don't get it. Why have so many people been offended by my opening post? I'm beginning to understand where Martin Parr's views came from now. I use Dr Herbz's photo as an example of a photographic cliché. He feels it necessary to defend by dissing me and my photographs. Not once have I said anyone's photography is bad. The more sensitive amongst you start using the thread to have a pop at me.
> ...



essentially stanely you have started a thinely veild trolling call out thread under the guise of oh let's pontificate and idlely speculate on what is art re the photographic genre...

really you posted it to have a pop at other posters work which you consider less than yours for not being so avant garde as to attempt something in your mind which is daring or different....

but that presupposes that everyone has either your experince or your abilities or is on some kind of level footing with you personal, artisitically or simply having the time to put in or the oppertunity to go out and shoot thigns which they desire/is a new format of the old medium...

most of my stuff shot is actually about me attempting to recreate cliched stuff, it's what the client wants 9/10 and indeed if you had done more cleint based work you'd understand that, rather than your struggleing artist schtich which tbh is getting old, clients are bastards they dont' like abstract they don't like different they want things which look like the 30,000 other things they have seen before, because people, unlike pretentious sozzled artistes, are afraid to experiment or be seen to be different.

for instance recent covershots for a motoring magazine (more cliches abounds in fact anything motor sport is instantly a cliche be default...) they choose the worst shot from the reel and it was the least intresting but the most cliched despite there beign to my mind 30 better shots on the reel... 

some of my shots i have been attempting to recreate an image in a certain way in order to understand how the original was taken (settings light cotnrol) and therefore learn more about my art.

Kinda like all apprenteces of the great masters had to repaint the portraits the masters had already painted to understand and get a feel for the medium.

most of my shots teach me something about light and how to use it.  Which, if your honest is really what your blurred shots are about it's finding that acceptable line or via the medium of practice knowing where that acceptable line is... 

This means that unless you can adapt your style to the clients wishes then you cease to be a working photographer in any real sense.  It does mean that a lot of whats shot is essentially good high quality snapshots, the advent of digital cameras has made this even more popular with the simplest point and shoot camera capable of taking in terms of definition and clarity at least better shots than any box brownie ever made...

This has taken a lot out of the intial skill of photography however, it has also made photography more accessable and those who wish to further themselves and their skills will do so knowing that the kit isn't so expensive if they want to get greater results or more control.

a lot of the shots taken which appear on urban are by amatures who are learning and teaching themselves to roll up with some snobbish attitude of well of course that's just tiresome cliched and we've all seen it before is sadly not only not helpful but a deep reflection on how little you value others work at all.  Which to my mind strikes me as a very poor artist, with limited if any talent other than a good editorial process...  the simple fact you are incapable of seeing what the photographer intending with the shot (be it a comercailist this is a can of pop, through to a stock type shot of people, or a 'cliched' peacock shot) it strikes me that the empathy you should have as an artist is ... well sadly lacking... 

I have to say i'm not fond of your shots generally, i don't think you are terribly fond of mine either, as it goes.  But what really irks is that you are incapable of seeing any merit in others whatsoever, and continually ponce around hear thinking that you are the defacto standard of artist....

you're not love, you are one of many, and most don't need to swan of to spain to be some kind of art tart, they can cut it in the snobby art world of hoxden and shoreditch and spout the offal you do with out even warming their cablis... 

but hey that devolves into personal attacks... 

which are frankly pointless.... 


it's a shit thread people don't do their thing for your benifit, as you don't for theirs if people find some concordance and acceptablity i what you or they are doign good on them.

no one needs some gimp with pretentions to tell them what is art....


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 25, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Jesus bloody wept.
> 
> I am not spiteful. How the fuck am I being spiteful
> 
> ...



Let's try it nice and slow for you there then. There is _constructive_ criticism and there is _destructive_ criticism.

The former is a good thing, as it points out to someone where they could improve what they are doing, how they could make it better, how they could try doing things differently to bring about improvements. It aims to make things better and move on.

The latter is a bad thing, as it points out perceived flaws, inflates the ego of the complainer as somehow being more worthwhile or worthy than that of the subject, and merely serves to demonstrate a severe lack of empathy with those who the complainer proclaims to be critiquing.

It's not about sensitivity per se, its about trying to identify potential improvements, not dismissing someone or something out of hand. All you've done is have a swipe at someone else, with little or no explanation.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 25, 2007)

having been on the end of it, stanley - yes, spiteful.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 25, 2007)

whilst i do think that stanley was rude in his original post,
really,
who gives a fuck?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2007)

rutabowa said:
			
		

> whilst i do think that stanley was rude in his original post,
> really,
> who gives a fuck?


you do clearly otherwise wh are you posting... ???


----------



## ck (Jul 25, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> I'll take your graffiti shots and raise you an architecture shot



I take lot's of shot's of graffiti as a record of pieces I like.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> having been on the end of it, stanley - yes, spiteful.


that's a bit bloody rich coming from you tbh... 

have you met the kettle? you'll get on ...


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 25, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> you do clearly otherwise wh are you posting... ???


because i've been posting photographic cliches, and everyone has been ignoring them in favour of discussing how rude Stanley is. so i guess i care in that i find it REALLY BORING and noone is paying any attention to me.


----------



## untethered (Jul 25, 2007)

ck said:
			
		

> I take lot's of shot's of graffiti as a record of pieces I like.



I take lots of shots of graffiti to help the local Safer Neighbourhoods Team prosecute persistent vandals.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 25, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> that's a bit bloody rich coming from you tbh...
> 
> have you met the kettle? you'll get on ...



grow up, garf


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2007)

rutabowa said:
			
		

> because i've been posting photographic cliches, and everyone has been ignoring them in favour of discussing how rude Stanley is. so i guess i care in that i find it REALLY BORING and noone is paying any attention to me.


erm i have discussed both beign that i am both a cliche and a talented fuck i can concetrait on both sides of the arguemtn and cover both aspects execptionally well so you comment of NO ONE is a lie and i call you out as a liar...

liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar,  



but to be fiar attempting to have a serious discussion on a call otu thread which is designed to Make the OP feel better about themselves is futile...


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 25, 2007)

I could be wrong about this Stanley

I really like you and your art but I think you have, especially when you've been at the sauce, a tendency to be dismissive and contemptuous of others and often you don't seem to understand what you've done wrong

Now the possibilities are 

a) You're one of those artists who has problems relating / empathising with others.  You wouldn't be the only one in the world or even on Urban   It could be that this is such a fundamental part of your character that no amount of discussion will help you to change, in which case it's cruel to just keep pulling you up on it and people just have to accept you for who you are and try not to take your comments personally 

b) you're usually able to relate to people but turn into a different person, aggressive and lacking in empathy after a few drinks.  The solution to this one is obvious.  

c) You are completely unaware of your own arrogance but have the emotional resources to look at yourself and change if you get enough reality checks from other people.

I'm hoping it's either b or c and wouldn't have bothered writing my initial post here if I thought it was a, but I really don't know Stanley.  The ball's in your court. 


I think it's also worth saying that none of us are perfect and even if you are spiteful you're in good company here on Urban.  There's a lot of it about.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> grow up, garf


one suggest might be that in the linar constant which is time one can do little else, besides what was your contribution ot this thread other than the infantile point scoring of relaitory attack on stanley for his oh so hurtful and twerrible comments on your previous thwead... you precious ponce... 

perhaps one needs to remove the plank from thine own eyes.. dearie...


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 25, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I take lots of shots of graffiti to help the local Safer Neighbourhoods Team prosecute persistent vandals.




I used to take lots of shots of graffiti just to document it before it got painted over 

nothing wrong with that IMO


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 25, 2007)

FWIW

A former clinical supervisor, a highly renowned psychoanalyst, once told me about how painful it was when he was first confronted about his sadism.  

I'm not talking about dressing up in rubber with a whip, I'm talking about the pleasure that many people get from making other people feel horrible.  

It's probably an aspect or most if not all people.  I suppose I'm saying this because I'm feeling worried about how Stanley must be feeling whne he reads this thread. 

My supervisor was a lovely person and a very good man, but he had to know himself and to get there he had to recognise that part of himself.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 25, 2007)

*gives Stanley a hug*

Chill out man


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 25, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> one suggest might be that in the linar constant which is time one can do little else, besides what was your contribution ot this thread other than the infantile point scoring of relaitory attack on stanley for his oh so hurtful and twerrible comments on your previous thwead... you precious ponce...
> 
> perhaps one needs to remove the plank from thine own eyes.. dearie...




grow up, garf


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 25, 2007)

Do we have any deckchairs in the photography cupboard?
I'm shooting food today, so I'll try and whip up some snacks...


----------



## Firky (Jul 25, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> one suggest might be that in the linar constant which is time one can do little else, besides what was your contribution ot this thread other than the infantile point scoring of relaitory attack on stanley for his oh so hurtful and twerrible comments on your previous thwead... you precious ponce...
> 
> perhaps one needs to remove the plank from thine own eyes.. dearie...



I prefered your emo tagline


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 25, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I still don't get it. Why have so many people been offended by my opening post? I'm beginning to understand where Martin Parr's views came from now. I use Dr Herbz's photo as an example of a photographic cliché. He feels it necessary to defend by dissing me and my photographs. Not once have I said anyone's photography is bad.



Really... Remember this?




			
				Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Badly executed more than clichéd. Dull light. Bad focus. Just a shot of dull trees really. Unexceptional and very, very dull.
> Your shot is shit by anyone's measure. My shot was nominated for awards. Why is that?



It's perfectly ok, Stanley, I realise you're in awe of me and that this is merely a misguided attempt at flattery but really, just send me a pm and I'll gladly give you a few pointers


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 25, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> I prefered your emo tagline




heh


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2007)

<stock dubversion response when his utter hypocracy is pointed out yet again>



			
				Dubversion said:
			
		

> grow up, garf


</stock dubversion response when his utter hypocracy is pointed out yet again>


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 25, 2007)

Dr_Herbz said:
			
		

> Really... Remember this?
> 
> 
> 
> It's perfectly ok, Stanley, I realise you're in awe of me and that this is merely a misguided attempt at flattery but really, just send me a pm and I'll gladly give you a few pointers




Different photo you idiot. I did give an honest critique. That photo is complete and utter crap IMO  


WTF is going on here  

I'm even getting half baked psychoanalysis opinions from someone I've never met. All I did was use one single person's photograph as an example of a photographic cliché. I seem to have offended half the bloody boards. Even Mr Dubversion - he who spits personal vitriol with vile regularity - accusing me of being of being spiteful.

The world has gone mad.

Right. I'm off to the pool with an ice cold pilsner. Think I fully appreciate what Martin Parr meant now. Educational.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 25, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Different photo you idiot. I did give an honest critique. That photo is complete and utter crap IMO
> 
> 
> WTF is going on here
> ...



well if you can't take constructive critism


----------



## Paul Russell (Jul 25, 2007)

BTW, it's a bit of a shock when someone savages one of your pictures, or all your pictures, but you get used to it after a while.

There's no need to take it personally.

If you were the greatest photographer in the world (however you would objectively judge that), there would still be a sizable number of people who hate the subject matter or style, and occasionally someone will say so.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 25, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Then don't.
> Keep your word and let us carry on without you, you tedious fuck.



Nah; I'll get back in, just for you, you untalented bore.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 25, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Nah; I'll get back in, just for you, you untalented bore.



 










Twit.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 25, 2007)

War! War's broken out! Has it? I don't know if it has yet but it might have, it could well be, it's hard to tell right now but we might as well assume it has, and if not it still possibly will, at some time in the future, probably, it's war!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 25, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> War! War's broken out! Has it? I don't know if it has yet but it might have, it could well be, it's hard to tell right now but we might as well assume it has, and if not it still possibly will, at some time in the future, probably, it's war!



No war: it's uncouth to fight with the wedding photographer.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 26, 2007)

mind taking it else where then wee janny... this isn't the forum for it... despite the riddculious openig salvo on this thread....


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 26, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> mind taking it else where then wee janny... this isn't the forum for it... despite the riddculious openig salvo on this thread....




Ah, it's ok. I'm happy to carry on pointing at laughing at him.


----------

