You are correct: I did not know how Photosnack recommendations work. Perhaps you need to reevaluate your format. There was no indication that the comments underneath the pic were referring to the artist's work as a whole, but rather referring to that specific pic. And, the comments were not your "personal description of (his) work," as you suggest. They were comments placed by others who were commenting on that 'specific' pic, and that's where my disagreement was, with those comments; that's all. That's why I say a format reevaluation may be in order. It's because, based on this explanation you give, it seems very confusing. Listen, I don't wish to continue this thread as it's not important enough for me to dedicate all this time to. Rather than just admitting that I had a valid point, or not commenting at all, you've turned it into a matter of principle by making an issue of it. Finally, by continuing to defend a stance/opinion which I consider indefensible, I'll probably unsubscribe from Photosnack because of your apparent obstinacy.
My hope and motivation in following any forum is open-mindedness (an ability to accept criticism) and reasonable discussion. However, the vibes I'm getting from you lend themselves to neither, but rather being very defensive. Which, if I may say, doesn't do you any favors. If you'd have taken a different, perhaps more reasonable approach, two things would have happened... Firstly, I would have enthusiastically maintained my subscription, and secondly, I would have gladly forwarded positive 'word-of-mouth.' Instead, you'll lose my subscription, and I'll go out of my way to mention this experience to my friends and encourage them not to follow Photosnack. Remember, there are myriad photography forums out there, too many to count. As to, was it worth it? Well, you're going to have to be the one to answer that. "No," the customer is NOT always right, for sure, but in this case...
Thank you for your message and for taking the time to explain your perspective. I understand that you found the format confusing at first — and that’s completely fair. Over the years, however, most PHOTOSNACK readers have learned how the recommendations work, and it usually just takes a minute of attention to figure it out. For almost two years this format has been running smoothly and has been well received, so I won’t be changing it based on a single incident of misunderstanding.
I do appreciate your honesty, but I also trust the consistency of what has been working well for the community as a whole.
Listen, I'm not familiar with the photographer who took this 'snapshot' of the black car seat, etc., but based on the two responses I've seen so far, I really need to laugh. Seriously? "Beautiful work," and "Amazing stuff." And, I imagine in a few more days, the rest of the lemmings will pour out and proudly add their stamps of approval.
What is going on? It feels like a really bad joke that's not funny.
It almost reminds me of the old idea of a famous painter spitting onto a canvas and it suddenly becomes "art."
It is my opinion that that is precisely the reason the term 'art' is developing such a bad name. Because it's become laughable... literally laughable. THINK! That's all, THINK!
Dear Frank, make sure you look at the artist's work in its entirety and not just at one photograph presented in this message. You have to explore their work, their portfolio. Sam's photography is outstanding.
Listen, you're only proving my point. Personally, I don't care about the entirety of his work. Yes, it may very well be great... fantastic, even. My criticism was based solely on the comments he was receiving for that one, 'single' image. Are all of his individual images to be taken in context with his entire body if work? I think not. Which, once again begs the question: If Picasso, for example, spits or takes a dump on a canvas, is it then, "Art?" Think about what you're saying. I wasn't criticizing him as an artist, nor was I criticizing the entirety of his work. Simply that one, (mediocre at best) snapshot.
P.S. The comments you mentioned were written by other readers, not by me. It’s also not entirely clear whether they were referring to the single image shown here or to Sam Abell’s body of work as a whole — I would lean toward the latter.
Dear Frank, obviously you are not familiar with the way PHOTOSNACK recommendations work. Let me explain.
The daily message (recommendation) consists of the name of the photographer, one image, and my personal description of their work.
The idea is to click on the link and visit photographer's work and explore their work.
Needless to say, one individual image sometimes IS and sometimes IS NOT an ideal representation of somebody's work.
Let's say, a photographer (like in the case of Sam Abell) works only in series. You would have to see at least one of their entire series to form your personal about their work, as the idea itself is exactly that a series of images creates a cohesive impact.
You are correct: I did not know how Photosnack recommendations work. Perhaps you need to reevaluate your format. There was no indication that the comments underneath the pic were referring to the artist's work as a whole, but rather referring to that specific pic. And, the comments were not your "personal description of (his) work," as you suggest. They were comments placed by others who were commenting on that 'specific' pic, and that's where my disagreement was, with those comments; that's all. That's why I say a format reevaluation may be in order. It's because, based on this explanation you give, it seems very confusing. Listen, I don't wish to continue this thread as it's not important enough for me to dedicate all this time to. Rather than just admitting that I had a valid point, or not commenting at all, you've turned it into a matter of principle by making an issue of it. Finally, by continuing to defend a stance/opinion which I consider indefensible, I'll probably unsubscribe from Photosnack because of your apparent obstinacy.
My hope and motivation in following any forum is open-mindedness (an ability to accept criticism) and reasonable discussion. However, the vibes I'm getting from you lend themselves to neither, but rather being very defensive. Which, if I may say, doesn't do you any favors. If you'd have taken a different, perhaps more reasonable approach, two things would have happened... Firstly, I would have enthusiastically maintained my subscription, and secondly, I would have gladly forwarded positive 'word-of-mouth.' Instead, you'll lose my subscription, and I'll go out of my way to mention this experience to my friends and encourage them not to follow Photosnack. Remember, there are myriad photography forums out there, too many to count. As to, was it worth it? Well, you're going to have to be the one to answer that. "No," the customer is NOT always right, for sure, but in this case...
Thank you for keeping it civil.
DearFrank,
Thank you for your message and for taking the time to explain your perspective. I understand that you found the format confusing at first — and that’s completely fair. Over the years, however, most PHOTOSNACK readers have learned how the recommendations work, and it usually just takes a minute of attention to figure it out. For almost two years this format has been running smoothly and has been well received, so I won’t be changing it based on a single incident of misunderstanding.
I do appreciate your honesty, but I also trust the consistency of what has been working well for the community as a whole.
Warm regards,
Tomasz
Listen, I'm not familiar with the photographer who took this 'snapshot' of the black car seat, etc., but based on the two responses I've seen so far, I really need to laugh. Seriously? "Beautiful work," and "Amazing stuff." And, I imagine in a few more days, the rest of the lemmings will pour out and proudly add their stamps of approval.
What is going on? It feels like a really bad joke that's not funny.
It almost reminds me of the old idea of a famous painter spitting onto a canvas and it suddenly becomes "art."
It is my opinion that that is precisely the reason the term 'art' is developing such a bad name. Because it's become laughable... literally laughable. THINK! That's all, THINK!
Dear Frank, make sure you look at the artist's work in its entirety and not just at one photograph presented in this message. You have to explore their work, their portfolio. Sam's photography is outstanding.
Listen, you're only proving my point. Personally, I don't care about the entirety of his work. Yes, it may very well be great... fantastic, even. My criticism was based solely on the comments he was receiving for that one, 'single' image. Are all of his individual images to be taken in context with his entire body if work? I think not. Which, once again begs the question: If Picasso, for example, spits or takes a dump on a canvas, is it then, "Art?" Think about what you're saying. I wasn't criticizing him as an artist, nor was I criticizing the entirety of his work. Simply that one, (mediocre at best) snapshot.
P.S. The comments you mentioned were written by other readers, not by me. It’s also not entirely clear whether they were referring to the single image shown here or to Sam Abell’s body of work as a whole — I would lean toward the latter.
Of course you would. Bye-bye!!!
Dear Frank, obviously you are not familiar with the way PHOTOSNACK recommendations work. Let me explain.
The daily message (recommendation) consists of the name of the photographer, one image, and my personal description of their work.
The idea is to click on the link and visit photographer's work and explore their work.
Needless to say, one individual image sometimes IS and sometimes IS NOT an ideal representation of somebody's work.
Let's say, a photographer (like in the case of Sam Abell) works only in series. You would have to see at least one of their entire series to form your personal about their work, as the idea itself is exactly that a series of images creates a cohesive impact.
Hope you understand.
Warne regards,
Tomasz
Beautiful work
Amazing stuff.