File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
>> Anonymous
-eyes should point to the free space
-what the fuck is that thing anyway
+sort of artsy
>> else !L6xabslN96
i like the colour...gief info/EXIF.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
I like it... it feels a little off balance but not in a bad way because the eyepiece and expression make the whole image seem a little surreal anyway.
One of the better head shots I've seen on /p/ in a while. Great work. (other than the self portrait thread.. there was some win in that)
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
also..
>>255848
>-eyes should point to the free space
I don't agree that eyes should ALWAYS point to free space even in a shot like this.
Since it isn't a typical portrait going against the grain works. ...In a typical portrait setting I would be able to agree with that 'rule'.
>> Anonymous
>>255857
>I like it.

Further proof that you have terrible taste.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>255869
People have different taste.
There's no such thing as bad or good taste.. it's all extremely subjective.
There's nothing objective about taste.
>> Anonymous
>>255873
shut up you have bad taste

Also shit photo that looks like beethy processing
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>255882
me
sage
I forgot it
>> Anon-e-mouse !!afr/99eDMEr
I like the filename. Also, good picture.
>> Anonymous
>>255873
>People have different taste.
>There's no such thing as bad or good taste.. it's all extremely subjective.

Classic response from someone who has poor taste.

Taste is learned, and objective, you idiot.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
     File :-(, x)
>>255904
>Taste is learned, and objective
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>255942

Tim Gunn would like to have a word with you.
>> Anonymous
>>255835

this picture embodies everything i find wrong with modern media, and the fucks that create it. thank you shitbean
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255835
I like this shot. I'm surprised you haven't been raeped for being a DeviantArt person yet.

>>255904
>Taste is learned, and objective, you idiot.
Let's discuss this statement.

Assuming that taste is learned, as you say, then that means that it can't be an instinctive thing. Therefore, "good taste" vs "bad taste" has to come from the society at large. Which further means that the majority, in this case, has to rule. If lots of people think that something is good, then thinking that that is good must be "good taste".

Now, let's take that in the context of the current world we live in where most people think overdone HDR looks awesome.

Do you see how you're a moron yet?
>> Anonymous
optical-flare.deviantart.com
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>256788
>>Which further means that the majority, in this case, has to rule. If lots of people think that something is good, then thinking that that is good must be "good taste".

why
>>Refrences
>>_________
>>letsgodigital.com
>> Anonymous
>Assuming that taste is learned, as you say, then that means that it can't be an instinctive thing. Therefore, "good taste" vs "bad taste" has to come from the society at large. Which further means that the majority, in this case, has to rule. If lots of people think that something is good, then thinking that that is good must be "good taste".

AC, are you retarded or learning impaired?
I don't want to make fun of you too much if you're actually retarded, but this may be the most specious bit of reasoning I've ever seen.

Just because something is LEARNED does not mean it comes form the MAJORITY, you fucking retarded shithead.

Something tells me you don't understand the distinction between new money/old money either.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>256800
Wait, what?

>>256807
>Just because something is LEARNED does not mean it comes form the MAJORITY, you fucking retarded shithead.
Fair enough. Technically not the majority, just the group that the majority consider to have good taste. Sort of an electoral college of culture, if you will. "Good taste" can't be *truly* objective. If it were, it would be possible to design a "Make good pictures" mode on cameras that would evaluate the sensor data and automatically trigger the shutter when good composition is achieved. It would be possible to make some sort of function through which you could send a JPEG and have either a Yea or Nay come out the other end.

So, we have the idea of a Consortium of the Learned who people say have good taste and whose judgment is accepted. Like, for instance, museum curators.
From Ken Rockwell:
>This image here has won me all sorts of awards and even hung in a Los Angeles gallery where an original Ansel Adams came down and this image was hung. When my image came down Ansel went right up again.
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>256815
My point was what he said except in one word. Also I cited your comment for you because you seem to forget to a lot.
>> Anonymous
>>256807

Wait did you even read the entire post...did you fail to see this

>>Now, let's take that in the context of the current world we live in where most people think overdone HDR looks awesome.

ac it like talking to a brick wall. Dont even waste you time.
>> Anonymous
OH christ you can all suck my dick.

OH NO THE EYES ARENT LOOKING INTO SPACE.

who fucking teaches you this shit. Who fucking told you that any creative medium has rules? your all pigs, fucking pigs.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>256824
Objective: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"

Subjective: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment"

If good taste were truly objective, there wouldn't be any disagreement about it because it would be immediately obvious what was good taste and what wasn't. "Good taste" is at the whims of the fashions of the day. Bell bottoms and huge afros were tasteful at one point, they're Halloween costumes now.There is no platinum-iridium bar of Good Taste stored in inert gas in a vault in Paris against which we can measure someone's photography. So we must accept that it is subjective.

The "Wait, what?" was more due to the letsgodigital reference thingy. I mean, I don't really understand that in general (i.e., what's wrong with using reference material to answer questions? Would you prefer I just made shit up?), but I especially don't understand it in regards to a discussion like this.
>> Anonymous
>>256838
>BAWWWW

nice one fag
>> Anonymous
>>256829
>Wait did you even read the entire post...did you fail to see this
>>Now, let's take that in the context of the current world we live in where most people think overdone HDR looks awesome.

I'm going to ignore AC since he's an idiot, and address you for just a second here.

1) As already stated, LEARNED ? MAJORITY

2) Good taste is very, very different from MAJORITY taste. If anything, good taste is limited to extreme MINORITIES in each category. IE: the MAJORITY of Americans eat at McDonald's, but only a MINORITY of Americans has ever eaten at a top restaurant like Chez Panisse.


Get it?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>256854
>but only a MINORITY of Americans has ever eaten at a top restaurant like Chez Panisse.
Ah, but Americans know that that as a higher quality restaurant. It's the cost and access issues that keep them from eating there, not because they genuinely prefer McDonalds.

The majority of people here who've commented (not counting Anonymous, who could very well be samefag, and in at least one case definitely is Meese) like it, who are you to say it's bad? What makes you the gold standard for Good Taste? It's a lot more likely that you're just some masturbating faggot in his basement who's only commenting at all because you can't achieve sexual climax unless you get idiots (e.g., me) to argue with you.
>> Anonymous
>>256863
I came
>> Anonymous
>>256863

>The majority of people here who've commented (not counting Anonymous, who could very well be samefag, and in at least one case definitely is Meese) like it, who are you to say it's bad?

>Now, let's take that in the context of the current world we live in where most people think overdone HDR looks awesome.


Good job invalidating your own comments.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>256863
hahaha very nice and i lol'd
inb4 slurp
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>256876
>Good job invalidating your own comments.
Sorry if it's unclear: I'm not arguing necessarily that the picture is good or bad. I am arguing that whether it is good or bad is not necessarily objective.

He's welcome to his opinion that this shot sucks. I disagree, but unlike him, I realize that art is subjective.
>> Anonymous
>>256885
if everything is relative why bother getting critique at all? is u like ur shot who care what others thingk?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>256888
>if everything is relative why bother getting critique at all? is u like ur shot who care what others thingk?
If you disagree with all critiques, there is no reason for it. The idea is that people will point out what they think is bad and give suggestions on how to improve.

Maybe the op will read "eyes should point to the free space" and agree with it. Maybe he'll try doing that next time and prefer the results. Or maybe he'll agree with those of us who disagree with that critique. In either case, it gets him to think about it and it gives us something to discuss and it lets us see a photograph that many or even most of us think is nice to look at.

In any case, I think it's objectively true and obvious to everyone that>>255869is a completely unhelpful post. ;)