Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I think you both have distorted views of formal education. Perhaps yours was entirely bad? Mine certainly wasn't/isn't all roses but it did provide me with some tools to improve my ability to think critically. One of those tools is naming conventions and historical references. Makes it easier to talk about things when you know who did what where when and why dontcha think? Also, and I repeat, not all education must be formal to be of value. NOT ALL EDUCATION MUST BE FORMAL TO BE OF VALUE. If you want to take cheap cliched shots at formal education have at it. I don't disagree that there can be problems but unless you're going to do it from the perspective of looking at different pedagogical methods to see what nets a greater ability to think critically it's a waste of time. But, and this is my point, to argue that a well informed educated opinion is no better than one spouted from ignorance? I have no time for that or interest in uninformed opinions.

The acronym SOOC and it's relative popularity as favourable adjective or aggrandizing hype is a symptom of the digital photography dominance and consequent devolution into daily production and sharing of billions of images of generic sameness. There was similar sentiment expressed decades ago when images included manipulated or created photographs: layered pieces of celluloid, scratched or otherwise abused celluloid, etc. Occasionally these techniques arise now, i.e. images developed in lake water.

When you operate in a field of gross ubiquity any and all possible self-promotion is used to rise above the rest. "Look at me", who cares, you're the same as 23million other photographers, "But I'm SOOC! and they're not". It's always false, basically irrelevant, and a lie as everybody on earth understands digital photography provenance from exposure to image presentation.

Whenever I read some photographer claim provenance SOOC I know instantly the image is simply irrelevant, boring, and from a neophyte with nothing of interest to say.

The fact is all photographic images SOOC that could be captured have already been captured regardless of subject. The only mild difference is time: that car racing over the hill now / drunk celebrity / bloody bomb explosion aftermath vs. similar one in similar scene xx years ago, or new technology adaptation such as some scientific macros; there's probably a few more.

The only truly unique and fundamentally creative photographic image making requires image manipulation, collage or outright false creation. The fact is 99.2375% of people are fundamentally uncreative, it's a rare and dangerous attribute, and it's not something you turn on with a 1/0 digital switch. The truly creative image maker often can't coherently explain how they arrived at their presented image, let alone parse an argument with SOOC.

I'll end my wall of text with the worlds' greatest living artist Chuck Close: "Photography is the easiest medium to master but the hardest to develop personal vision." and a SOOC image descriptor is hence too ignorant of history and too limiting and therefore an admission of irrelevancy.

I think you both have distorted views of formal education. Perhaps yours was entirely bad? Mine certainly wasn't/isn't all roses but it did provide me with some tools to improve my ability to think critically. One of those tools is naming conventions and historical references. Makes it easier to talk about things when you know who did what where when and why dontcha think? Also, and I repeat, not all education must be formal to be of value. NOT ALL EDUCATION MUST BE FORMAL TO BE OF VALUE. If you want to take cheap cliched shots at formal education have at it. I don't disagree that there can be problems but unless you're going to do it from the perspective of looking at different pedagogical methods to see what nets a greater ability to think critically it's a waste of time. But, and this is my point, to argue that a well informed educated opinion is no better than one spouted from ignorance? I have no time for that or interest in uninformed opinions.[/quote]

Then remove the word 'formal' from my post and I'll let it stand, as is.



I frequently find myself laughing at how such preconceptions are levied in an endeavour that is supposed to be, at least in part, about breaking boundaries.

Is it art? take your pick, mix and match, make your own:

Was it created with the intent to make art?
Is the creator a recognized artist?
Does the viewer think it's art?
Has it got a title that proclaims it is art?
It is so strange or I can't understand it then it must be art.
Will someone buy it as art work?
Has an art critic written a review?
Does it fit into a formal category of art?
Does it fit in with what is historically called art?
Is the artist dead or has he or her gone insane?
...

Right now on DPReview this is a photo of the day that's causing a lot of debate:
http://connect.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1249312809/connect-picture-of-the-day/5984873057

Ah, yes, who doesn't have one of those