scyrene said:
But I strongly reject the accusation of selfishness. Why is it selfish? That just seems a way of telling people to act a certain way (conforming to your views, which is funny as you talk negatively about conformity, on which more below).
It's prepending always the "I" in front of everything else. IMHO the whole "social network" world is in reality not "social" but
"selfish" - the endless self-promotion in competition with others measured by "likes" - and moreover everything happens inside a cage designed by others for their own advantage.
Don't get me wrong, the occasional selfie is OK, but when it becomes mostly the only way you image the world around you and to describe you, I think there's something wrong.
scyrene said:
I also reject the old trope that created works ('art') have value because of the meaning it contains, or conveys.
I just said images that "tells" - telling an history, not a "deep meaning", maybe just simple your history - because there's something "happening" in the images - maybe something that is understandable only by you and close people, and it could be not art at all.
Selfies are static - they don't tell anything, but maybe that you were in a place barely recognizable, and are designed to be shown off to others. I have photos of me where I'm far from being happy and beautiful. They also tell stories about me, stories that are sad but still part of me, and of course I wouldn't publish them on a social - if I published anything, of course.
scyrene said:
And on conformity, well humans are conformist. There's a spectrum of behaviour, both across and within people.
True - and the cunning social engineers knows it very well, and exploit it fully to make a lot of money. The whole "social network" system is design around conformism, and to never challenge people attitudes and thinking. Never get out of your comfort zone, be fed only with contents you surely "like", and especially, you'll likely to buy.
scyrene said:
But most people who think they're non-conformist are just conforming in a different way, and that seems to me a worse cliché - oh, I'm not like those sheep, I'm special. A truly original creation is a very rare thing (and novelty-as-value is another long-held cliché that lacks convincing foundation).
True. But as long as you avoid to challenge people minds, and just use positive feedback to strengthen preconceptions, while refusing innovative thinking, you'll make it rarer and rarer.
I've seen recently people at photo course snubbing the works of photographers like Robert Frank, Stephen Shore or Andras Gursky because they are not like the images they are used to see and they aim to make. Of course, you don't have to like them or copy them, but they instantly refused them, not the slightest attempt to relate with them.
That's why I welcome a camera like the 4000D, its limitations could be actually be useful.
scyrene said:
Anyway, this is all very off topic - on which I'll say, anything that makes photography accessible to those who want to do it is a good thing!
So, we agree on that, at least