Return of "rise of the radioactive hdrs".

[LazerLordz]

i hate that line of thought - if taken too liberally then you will have one messed up world where there are no absolutes.

i mean, if you want to be all liberal and say that hey, everybody has a right to his point of view - just imagine a murderer in court - the judge bangs the gavel down and says:

"oh well, he just sees things in a different way, to each his own. case dismissed."

life isn't all diverse, it isn't all uniform either - it's a mixture of both. which is why there can be discussion about so many things. yes, art is subjective; one man's meat can be another's poison - but i do think that at any point of time, there will be a relatively uniform concept of beauty - what do you think of this?

I would still maintain that there are no absolutes in this world, even given truths are fixed identities for a certain epoch in time.

Sure, one may bring out examples of classical Western forms of beauty and elegance, e.g Grecian sculpture/lacquerware, Roman architecture, the Parisian Opera House and so on. I think a uniform concept of beauty applies to the extent that the audience requires it to stand by itself.

For example, the image of a plump human being is certainly not seen as a societal representation of beauty/virility/"hawt-ness", but in certain historical periods in other civilisations, the codes of beauty were radically different from what we might deem as beautiful. A nude man strolling in public would have been lauded by the Greeks for his sense of pride yet the very same chap would be booked and hauled in for public indecency.

Perhaps I digress.

What would it really prove to hold art to a single unifying position of beauty but to shatter the very foundation of what art means? Yes, we may feel nauseous at certain works of art because they offend our personal sensibility, but if we play the numbers game, the laws of probability would make a universal concept of beauty or photographic excellence moot at some point.

All said and done, while we can express our displeasure at certain works based on our own referential point, it's simply impossible to have a single, unifying standard that will apply because we're all individuals. And human perception of beauty in my opinion is a lovely thing because it's almost like asking if the cat in Schrodinger's box is alive, dead or in-between..one never knows if what he or she deems ugly may be accepted by another.

You're right to a certain extent when you mentioned the relative nature of beauty and that has already eroded the aspect of uniformity in itself..

I guess when all's said and done, we will always lobby as individuals or groups, for that's all we can do realistically.

Perhaps this debate will ignite a greater urge for everyone to shoot more and reflect on what it means to create art if it relatively condemned than applauded.

 

[night86mare]

first off - let me start by saying that your opening paragraph contains a most interesting point of view - albeit self-defeating. by saying that there are no absolutes in this world, then you have just committed an ultimate logical fallacy. since the statement has to be true for well, it to be true, then even the statement itself is false. such cannot be avoided.

there are absolutes - if event a happened after time a, then it is absolute, is it not?

but enough of pandering over frivolous stuff, i could agree with you that art forms develop and morph and liquify over the years.

it seems like we seem to be going south. let's take your example for instance. at certain points in time, rotund women were found to be attractive in china (or greek, if you will, i don't know about that, so i use china). what merit is there in this attractiveness? there are implications here - one could even argue it out for them, saying that this was a sign of fertility.

how about radioactive hdrs that you see, a dime a dozen on the net? what merits do they have? does the author have any idea what he is doing?

i know one thing for sure, that art is all about putting one's vision into real life. certainly you would give me the presumption that art is that - it is after all, formulated from the mind and soul. you could not possibly create art from absent-minded, zombie-like states, could you? (despite what peter parker would lead you to believe when he draws his silly paintings in heroes, ok i'm just kidding here)

this isn't about the majority, you get me wrong. i condemn these radioactive hdr creators not because they do not conform. conformity is the least of my concerns, and i would vehemently argue against it whenever the opportunity arises. we need differing opinions, we need differing views, we need inspirations in an uninspired age.

but how can you call these radioactive hdrs "different"? "inspirational"? they are all drawn from a single source - that of finding the FIRST radioactive hdr "cool". "cool effect" is the number one phrase one sees when you see comments on radioactive hdr. so how has this equated to art? or the development of art?

in trying to be different, they do not see that they have ended up as the same. how can they then profess to be "creative"? this is like saying that the 1000th bubble tea seller in singapore 5 years ago when it was all the craze was creative and enterprising. i grant you that, the first probably was; the next which came up with the sealing machines idea to work in tandem with the concept was innovative, but hey, everyone else? sheep.

i'm not sure if you've missed my points throughout this discussion entirely, but this is what i meant - art, and development of art, is not aided by the proliferation of radioactive hdr makers who don't know what they are doing. this lack of vision and this desperate need to need to "conform to non-conformity" is what leads to my hard view. cheers.

 

[dDarkroom]

there's ain't no absolute. just that certain things thus gain some universal consensus and they will change from time to time. can you think of anything that have not change.

 

[night86mare]

there's ain't no absolute. just that certain things thus gain some universal consensus and they will change from time to time. can you think of anything that have not change.

man has 2 eyes, 2 ears and a nose.

also, he still can do this :bsmilie:

 

[pisduck]

there's ain't no absolute. just that certain things thus gain some universal consensus and they will change from time to time. can you think of anything that have not change.

aiya, like what nightware said, the thing that have not change is .....

the fact that nothing is permanent. This fact will never change

 

[night86mare]

aiya, like what nightware said, the thing that have not change is .....

the fact that nothing is permanent. This fact will never change

hehehehe, actually, that is another self-contradicting statement

by that, i refer to "the fact that nothing is permanent will never change" :bsmilie:

well, i didn't exactly say that, in fact i dispute this statement ; certainly in the long run, things change. but like a famous economist once said;

in the long run we are all dead.

 

[dDarkroom]

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: let us not digress to philosophy. let the discussion of HDR continue.

BTW have anyone read this book - HDRi Handbook. http://www.hdrlabs.com/book/

A good cook book for HDR.

 

[night86mare]

:bsmilie:let us not digress to philosophy. let the discussion of HDR continue.

BTW have anyone read this book - HDRi Handbook. http://www.hdrlabs.com/book/

A good cook book for HDR.

awww , spoil my fun

but thanks for sharing this link. it certainly looks very helpful, and the examples given on the site of hdr, that is, are beautifully executed.

:think: does riceball have it?

 

[leejay]

it seems like we seem to be going south. let's take your example for instance. at certain points in time, rotund women were found to be attractive in china (or greek, if you will, i don't know about that, so i use china). what merit is there in this attractiveness? there are implications here - one could even argue it out for them, saying that this was a sign of fertility.

I am surprised. You don't like rotund women meh? I do, you know.

 

[night86mare]

I am surprised. You don't like rotund women meh? I do, you know.

1. round in shape; rounded: ripe, rotund fruit.
2. plump; fat.
3. full-toned or sonorous: rotund speeches.

i think i prefer petite

Small, slender, and trim.

 

[LazerLordz]

1. round in shape; rounded: ripe, rotund fruit.
2.  plump; fat.
3. full-toned or sonorous: rotund speeches.

i think i prefer petite

Small, slender, and trim.

Quid pro quo.