swhnyc wrote:
I get so frustrated with guys who take dull, flat, meaningless photographs of models who are partially or fully nude and expect us all to believe they're artists for it.  Your ability to talk somebody out of their clothes doesn't mean you have anything relevant or creative to say.  I don't judge it: just don't go calling yourself an artist unless it's either aesthetically powerful, or expresses something -- ANYthing -- or is at the very least deliberately crafted with some semblance of skill.

Just a rant; don't mind me.

"I don't judge it"

"Just don't go calling yourself an artist"

Hmmm.....

swhnyc wrote:
I get so frustrated with guys who take dull, flat, meaningless photographs of models who are partially or fully nude and expect us all to believe they're artists for it.

Me, too.

I honestly HATE that crap.

swhnyc wrote:
I get so frustrated with guys who take dull, flat, meaningless photographs of models who are partially or fully nude and expect us all to believe they're artists for it.

so competently shot breasts = art? and therefore those who shoot them well = artists?

swhnyc wrote:
I get so frustrated with guys who take dull, flat, meaningless photographs of models who are partially or fully nude and expect us all to believe they're artists for it.  Your ability to talk somebody out of their clothes doesn't mean you have anything relevant or creative to say.  I don't judge it: just don't go calling yourself an artist unless it's either aesthetically powerful, or expresses something -- ANYthing -- or is at the very least deliberately crafted with some semblance of skill.

Just a rant; don't mind me.

duhhhh....GWC...how else would these guys see a pair of boobies without paying a $5 cover at their local tittie bar!?!?

swhnyc wrote:
I get so frustrated with guys who take dull, flat, meaningless photographs of models who are partially or fully nude and expect us all to believe they're artists for it.  Your ability to talk somebody out of their clothes doesn't mean you have anything relevant or creative to say.  I don't judge it: just don't go calling yourself an artist unless it's either aesthetically powerful, or expresses something -- ANYthing -- or is at the very least deliberately crafted with some semblance of skill.

Just a rant; don't mind me.

true true......whats even more pathetic is the comments you see on such frames...."awesome.....amazing"  and for a pic that shows nothing but monster hooters and a girl with sunglasses on......."i love this pic....so dramatic and artistic....your eyes are just stunning".....pullleeeeze......the girl has big hooters and thats the only thing anyone sees in the pic and then "arteests" give these wonderful critiques......
just my two shekels worth

oldguysrule wrote:
agreed...
or art (the most overused word in these forums)

How strange. I always thought the most overused word in these forums was "escort."  Followed closely by "chipper."

Capt Stu Beans wrote:
why not just let people do their thing and you do your thing. We could all live in peace and harmony. why other peoples pictures actually FUSTRATE others is beyond me.

and i could also continue to profit off selling the same bridge daily.

This is most true.  If you do not like something, don't get involved with it.  Personally, I always think a model should do some research, not just for the quality of image that can be produced, but for the model's safety.  I do not mind when a model has checked my port, see what I have accomplished and so forth.  Check what the setting and who will be there.  The same for the photogarpher.  If something doesn't figure to be great for either, then call it off.  Its like the escort debate, If I do not want one and you do, no problem we were not meant to work togther.

Just because we are both in the same industry doesn't mean I have to be your perfect photogarpher. However, if you are not my perfect model I will move on, as you should look for your perfect photogarpher.  A simple no and polite thank you would do wonders for internet photography.
M