Todd Fisher's Kissing Series
December 2, 2009 7:37 AM Subscribe
Todd Fisher's Kissing Series. Photographs of people kissing. His other photographs are quite good as well.
[via LPV]
[via LPV]
If this matters to you, the "via" link is NSFW. (Also, get back to work! November expense reports are due!)
posted by Ian A.T. at 7:46 AM on December 2, 2009
posted by Ian A.T. at 7:46 AM on December 2, 2009
Very cool -- but I wonder if he creeped out a lot of people snapping these.
Is sideways scroll that annoying? I do the same thing on my photo site
posted by rottytooth at 7:49 AM on December 2, 2009
Is sideways scroll that annoying? I do the same thing on my photo site
posted by rottytooth at 7:49 AM on December 2, 2009
Is sideways scroll that annoying? I do the same thing on my photo site
My first thought when I saw "scroll right" was "fuck you." So, yes, since you asked.
posted by grouse at 7:50 AM on December 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
My first thought when I saw "scroll right" was "fuck you." So, yes, since you asked.
posted by grouse at 7:50 AM on December 2, 2009 [8 favorites]
Hipster kissing leads to hipster babies.
posted by elmer benson at 7:51 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by elmer benson at 7:51 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I hate sideways scrolling as well. I suspect someone out there was trying to fake the effect of looking at a gallery wall, I suppose.
posted by chunking express at 7:55 AM on December 2, 2009
posted by chunking express at 7:55 AM on December 2, 2009
What's artistic about documenting the tacky PDA of dirty hipsters in their native habitat of urban squalor?
posted by pjdoland at 7:56 AM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by pjdoland at 7:56 AM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
These aren't hipsters, they're just people who never shower.
posted by DU at 7:57 AM on December 2, 2009
posted by DU at 7:57 AM on December 2, 2009
What makes these people hipsters?
posted by chunking express at 7:59 AM on December 2, 2009
posted by chunking express at 7:59 AM on December 2, 2009
I think I caught something from looking at those photos.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:00 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:00 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Am I the only person who kind of gets all squirmy when I see pics or film of people kissing? Must be a sign of my eternal immaturity I guess. I do really like the quality of the photos though. Very immediate.
And while we're talking about dirty hipsters...I never realized how dirty and unkempt they really can be until yesterday, when I was on the subway and saw a hipster extraordinaire whose fly was way wide open, all shirttails flapping in the breeze and such. The fact that his fly was so very open totally catapulted him from "greasy hipster" to "unfortunate homeless man". It was quite interesting. I only knew for sure he was actually a hipster by his massive Starbucks beverage. I didn't tell him about his wardrobe malfunction, which might make me a bad person I guess.
posted by Go Banana at 8:08 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
And while we're talking about dirty hipsters...I never realized how dirty and unkempt they really can be until yesterday, when I was on the subway and saw a hipster extraordinaire whose fly was way wide open, all shirttails flapping in the breeze and such. The fact that his fly was so very open totally catapulted him from "greasy hipster" to "unfortunate homeless man". It was quite interesting. I only knew for sure he was actually a hipster by his massive Starbucks beverage. I didn't tell him about his wardrobe malfunction, which might make me a bad person I guess.
posted by Go Banana at 8:08 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I remember being young and in lust. I thought it was pretty fun at the time. Now I'm actually coming around about being old and in love. It's pretty much the same, except easier on the knees.
posted by 1f2frfbf at 8:11 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by 1f2frfbf at 8:11 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Last Night's Art Project
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 8:16 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 8:16 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Hipsters might be young people, but not all young people are hipsters.
I quite liked the photos. Those people are really kissing, not just kissing for the camera. You also, for the most part, don't get to see the people's faces so the eye is drawn to details one might not notice in more 'normal' photographs of couples.
posted by slimepuppy at 8:21 AM on December 2, 2009
I quite liked the photos. Those people are really kissing, not just kissing for the camera. You also, for the most part, don't get to see the people's faces so the eye is drawn to details one might not notice in more 'normal' photographs of couples.
posted by slimepuppy at 8:21 AM on December 2, 2009
Photographs of people whites in their early 20s kissing
FTFY.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:34 AM on December 2, 2009
FTFY.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:34 AM on December 2, 2009
Kissing is good. I am pro-kissing, in almost any circumstances.
posted by Danf at 8:41 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Danf at 8:41 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Hipsters might be young people, but not all young people are hipsters.
No, but most of the people in these photos are.
Though it might be the fact that these are lit just like American Apparel ads that's making me think that.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:48 AM on December 2, 2009
No, but most of the people in these photos are.
Though it might be the fact that these are lit just like American Apparel ads that's making me think that.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:48 AM on December 2, 2009
lazy - sloppy
never scrolled as its not hard what edgy wanna be vice shit is around the corner.
posted by monkeyJuice at 8:51 AM on December 2, 2009
never scrolled as its not hard what edgy wanna be vice shit is around the corner.
posted by monkeyJuice at 8:51 AM on December 2, 2009
I was totally prepared to come here and say, "might as well be titled 'Hipsters Kissing,'" but I've been beaten to the punch.
What makes these people hipsters?
You know what they say. If you can't spot the hipster at the table, it's because you are the hipster.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:54 AM on December 2, 2009
What makes these people hipsters?
You know what they say. If you can't spot the hipster at the table, it's because you are the hipster.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:54 AM on December 2, 2009
1f2frfbf - you just made my favourite comment - yay you
posted by dprs75 at 8:56 AM on December 2, 2009
posted by dprs75 at 8:56 AM on December 2, 2009
What makes these people hipsters?
White, young, thin, attractive, bad haircuts, unfinished tattoos, inscrutable tattoos, chest hair, sweater vests, neon, urban setting, torn nylons, black and white damask, converses, ankle boots, skinny jeans, buttoned up flannel, booty shorts and miniskirts, knee-high socks with hooker shoes, graffiti, grease.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:01 AM on December 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
White, young, thin, attractive, bad haircuts, unfinished tattoos, inscrutable tattoos, chest hair, sweater vests, neon, urban setting, torn nylons, black and white damask, converses, ankle boots, skinny jeans, buttoned up flannel, booty shorts and miniskirts, knee-high socks with hooker shoes, graffiti, grease.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:01 AM on December 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
I was underwhelmed by the kissing series, but this one is awesome.
posted by afu at 9:01 AM on December 2, 2009
posted by afu at 9:01 AM on December 2, 2009
Am I the only person who kind of gets all squirmy when I see pics or film of people kissing?
I do too, when they appear to be filthy people kissing in squalor. I start having all kinds of flea and lice related thoughts.
Also, advice: If you ever watch the movie Kids, skip the first three minutes or so. Srsly.
posted by rusty at 9:04 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I do too, when they appear to be filthy people kissing in squalor. I start having all kinds of flea and lice related thoughts.
Also, advice: If you ever watch the movie Kids, skip the first three minutes or so. Srsly.
posted by rusty at 9:04 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sweet Jesus is this going to be another hipsters-drive-like-this-amirite thread?
posted by shakespeherian at 9:25 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 9:25 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Oh man, the start of Kids. Very high on my list of Things I Wish I Could Unsee. Right up there with Tommy Wiseau's naked flanks in The Room.
posted by Go Banana at 9:27 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Go Banana at 9:27 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
My imagination must love these people, because with almost no prompting it knit them all little names and pixellated life bars a la Final Fight and Double Dragon.
posted by kid ichorous at 9:40 AM on December 2, 2009
posted by kid ichorous at 9:40 AM on December 2, 2009
Sweet Jesus is this going to be another hipsters-drive-like-this-amirite thread?
It would be, except for the fact that hipsters don't care enough to learn how to drive.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:22 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
It would be, except for the fact that hipsters don't care enough to learn how to drive.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:22 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Im not a fan of the make out pics, but I love the few that are less about getting off and more about caring about someone.
Its amazing how much context you can make out (npi) once you put aside your disdain for hipsters.
posted by subaruwrx at 10:49 AM on December 2, 2009
Its amazing how much context you can make out (npi) once you put aside your disdain for hipsters.
posted by subaruwrx at 10:49 AM on December 2, 2009
Jesus fucking christ. In true metafilter fashion we have a post about a photographer and all you people want to do is bitch about hipsters and side scrolling. You sound like a bunch of assholes in a nursing home justifying your own absurd aesthetics and beliefs by going on and on about how it's too bad all these youngsters won't just join the ranks of the rest of the miserable yuppie-ati and dawn navy blue suit coats and refuse to scroll anyway but up and down. You made your stance on hipsters and side scrolling annoyingly clear several thousand posts ago. Get a fucking life. Hate on something useful.
The kissing photos aren't bad - a lot of the moments are genuine and I appreciated that. However, I liked series 1, the series of photos of people in the ocean, much better. Nicely taken, interesting context, charming and subtly strange.
posted by Lutoslawski at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The kissing photos aren't bad - a lot of the moments are genuine and I appreciated that. However, I liked series 1, the series of photos of people in the ocean, much better. Nicely taken, interesting context, charming and subtly strange.
posted by Lutoslawski at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sideways scrolling is big on photographers sites these days and I think it's one of the best ways to view a series of photographs. Suck it!
Also re: lol hipsters: photographers tend to shoot their lives and the people around them. Look, youth!
posted by wemayfreeze at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also re: lol hipsters: photographers tend to shoot their lives and the people around them. Look, youth!
posted by wemayfreeze at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I must be missing something here - I think those are pretty average photos. I do like the sideways scrolling though! (Or have I got that back to front?)
posted by the_very_hungry_caterpillar at 11:05 AM on December 2, 2009
posted by the_very_hungry_caterpillar at 11:05 AM on December 2, 2009
The "Untitled 2" series is a wicked slice of urban chaos. Brilliantly disturbing.
posted by Ella Fynoe at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Ella Fynoe at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
You sound like a bunch of assholes in a nursing home justifying your own absurd aesthetics and beliefs by going on and on about how it's too bad all these youngsters won't just join the ranks of the rest of the miserable yuppie-ati and dawn navy blue suit coats and refuse to scroll anyway but up and down.
Huh. Funny, considering I'm a 25-y-o sorta hipster. I'm too geeky and poor to really feel at ease in hipster circles, but if someone called me one, I certainly wouldn't argue. But, I mean chunking express asked.
As for the photos themselves, most in this series actually do feel very posed, to me, and something about the manner of PDA here strikes me as posturing, though it's difficult to put my finger on why. I think the more provocative ones are the outliers: the older-looking couple kissing in front of a car, the people on the park bench. There's something different about the demographics of the subject, so that might be some of it. Now I'm going to sound really old, but seeing college students lip-locked isn't that surprising--seeing people who are part of other demographics doing so in public is. I'm not a huge fan of the composition of most of these either, though I like it in a few: the couple kissing on the pipes, panned out enough that you can see someone else apparently talking to themselves, the bench photo, again. But overall, these just look like hastily taken shots done with a disposable camera. With lomography and all, I'm not sure if that aesthetic, alone, is enough to make an okay photograph interesting. My overall, gut response to this series is a shrug.
(I'm more annoyed that these are all one or two huge photos than that you have to side scroll--it makes it impossible to link to a single one)
I do agree that the ocean series is probably his best. The movement is great and it really captures the feeling of being at the ocean.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:14 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Huh. Funny, considering I'm a 25-y-o sorta hipster. I'm too geeky and poor to really feel at ease in hipster circles, but if someone called me one, I certainly wouldn't argue. But, I mean chunking express asked.
As for the photos themselves, most in this series actually do feel very posed, to me, and something about the manner of PDA here strikes me as posturing, though it's difficult to put my finger on why. I think the more provocative ones are the outliers: the older-looking couple kissing in front of a car, the people on the park bench. There's something different about the demographics of the subject, so that might be some of it. Now I'm going to sound really old, but seeing college students lip-locked isn't that surprising--seeing people who are part of other demographics doing so in public is. I'm not a huge fan of the composition of most of these either, though I like it in a few: the couple kissing on the pipes, panned out enough that you can see someone else apparently talking to themselves, the bench photo, again. But overall, these just look like hastily taken shots done with a disposable camera. With lomography and all, I'm not sure if that aesthetic, alone, is enough to make an okay photograph interesting. My overall, gut response to this series is a shrug.
(I'm more annoyed that these are all one or two huge photos than that you have to side scroll--it makes it impossible to link to a single one)
I do agree that the ocean series is probably his best. The movement is great and it really captures the feeling of being at the ocean.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:14 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
"... I was on the subway and saw a hipster extraordinaire whose fly was way wide open ... I didn't tell him about his wardrobe malfunction ..." posted by Go Banana
Eponysterical.
posted by Greg_Ace at 11:21 AM on December 2, 2009
Eponysterical.
posted by Greg_Ace at 11:21 AM on December 2, 2009
You sound like a bunch of assholes in a nursing home justifying your own absurd aesthetics and beliefs by going on and on about how it's too bad all these youngsters won't just join the ranks of the rest of the miserable yuppie-ati and dawn navy blue suit coats...
Fucking khakis, nimrod. KHAKIS! Pleated. Fucking. KHAKIS.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:24 AM on December 2, 2009
Fucking khakis, nimrod. KHAKIS! Pleated. Fucking. KHAKIS.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:24 AM on December 2, 2009
Hate on something useful.
You are not the boss of me.
posted by everichon at 11:46 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
You are not the boss of me.
posted by everichon at 11:46 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
A very interesting collection. The photos drag you right into the scene, to the point that I got the same sense of being an involuntary voyeur that I used to have when I ran into passionate neckers in high school. His preoccupation with weird poses -- people peering, people bent over -- is interesting too. I love the unexpected color match ups. Nothing pretty or easy about this work, though. I'd be intrigued to see what his unmerciful eye did with some harsher topics.
posted by bearwife at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2009
posted by bearwife at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2009
What makes these people hipsters?
The photos. The photos are poorly lit, framed, shot, pretty much everything about the craft of photography is ignored in order to achieve a certain aesthetic. Much like 'hipster fashion.' Digital cameras these days, you can just put them on Auto and still take better photos. You have to intentionally make them bad, which is so much easier than actually taking them time to make them good.
So that pretty much leaves the subject matter as the defining aspect of the series - a subject matter that does nothing to dissuade all the predictable (and not unwarranted) hipster hate, as comprehensively outlined by PhoBWanKenobi.
My final criticism is of the execution of the series. People kissing. And here is another photo, and another, and another. Hit me over the head with people kissing. It is almost mind-numbing in its simplicity and lack of imagination. If you're going to explore a concept, at least take the time to examine different aspects of the idea, different scenarios, anything. Kyle Cassidy is one of the worst offenders when it comes to using themes as a crutch.
Personally I prefer subtlety and complexity in art, something that is lost in meaningless repetition.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 11:52 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The photos. The photos are poorly lit, framed, shot, pretty much everything about the craft of photography is ignored in order to achieve a certain aesthetic. Much like 'hipster fashion.' Digital cameras these days, you can just put them on Auto and still take better photos. You have to intentionally make them bad, which is so much easier than actually taking them time to make them good.
So that pretty much leaves the subject matter as the defining aspect of the series - a subject matter that does nothing to dissuade all the predictable (and not unwarranted) hipster hate, as comprehensively outlined by PhoBWanKenobi.
My final criticism is of the execution of the series. People kissing. And here is another photo, and another, and another. Hit me over the head with people kissing. It is almost mind-numbing in its simplicity and lack of imagination. If you're going to explore a concept, at least take the time to examine different aspects of the idea, different scenarios, anything. Kyle Cassidy is one of the worst offenders when it comes to using themes as a crutch.
Personally I prefer subtlety and complexity in art, something that is lost in meaningless repetition.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 11:52 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Personally I prefer subtlety and complexity in art, something that is lost in meaningless repetition.
I could not disagree with you more. Subtlety/Complexity and Repetition are not mutually exclusive - and very often it is the repetition itself which brings meaning to the work. Consider minimalism - Reich, Lang, Glass, Adams, etc. Heck, Beethoven's ninth is built on heavy repetition (as is much Beethoven, though more subtle in other works). Variations on a them does not equal, prima facie, meaningless repetition.
I also take issue with trying to reduce a photograph to subject matter. That's utterly ridiculous and reductionist. Even if you don't like the lighting, etc, a photograph can no more be stripped down to a single 'defining aspect' anymore than the quality of a symphony can be addressed by considering the melody alone.
posted by Lutoslawski at 12:14 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I could not disagree with you more. Subtlety/Complexity and Repetition are not mutually exclusive - and very often it is the repetition itself which brings meaning to the work. Consider minimalism - Reich, Lang, Glass, Adams, etc. Heck, Beethoven's ninth is built on heavy repetition (as is much Beethoven, though more subtle in other works). Variations on a them does not equal, prima facie, meaningless repetition.
I also take issue with trying to reduce a photograph to subject matter. That's utterly ridiculous and reductionist. Even if you don't like the lighting, etc, a photograph can no more be stripped down to a single 'defining aspect' anymore than the quality of a symphony can be addressed by considering the melody alone.
posted by Lutoslawski at 12:14 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
*theme
posted by Lutoslawski at 12:14 PM on December 2, 2009
posted by Lutoslawski at 12:14 PM on December 2, 2009
FWIW, infinitefloatingbrains, I'm pretty sure most—if not all—of these photos were taken on film, likely with a point-and-shoot. Which is a big part of the look and the feel and the hip and the now that the photographer is going for.
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:38 PM on December 2, 2009
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:38 PM on December 2, 2009
I concede that 'Subtlety/Complexity and Repetition are not mutually exclusive.' But context matters. I should have said 'it is meaningless in these photos.' Even the minimalists took craft into account before they could choose to ignore it, otherwise no one would have taken them seriously.
Reducing a photo to subject matter is not ridiculous at all - if the melody of a symphony is so terrible and distracting that it defines all the critical reviews (see hipster hate in this thread), then yes, it may be reductionist but it is still the defining aspect in terms of how people view the photo.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 12:44 PM on December 2, 2009
Reducing a photo to subject matter is not ridiculous at all - if the melody of a symphony is so terrible and distracting that it defines all the critical reviews (see hipster hate in this thread), then yes, it may be reductionist but it is still the defining aspect in terms of how people view the photo.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 12:44 PM on December 2, 2009
I think the content is distracting because people on Mefi apparently need to express their hate when it comes to people they think are hipsters. If I showed these photos to my mom, i'm not sure she'd like them, but i'm pretty sure she wouldn't be complaining about peoples clothing or haircuts.
I don't think these photos are poorly framed at all. There are some really great scenes in that series. More so, these weren't shot in a studio, so I don't think you can fault him for ending up with poorly lit shots. It looks like he's shot them on film with what I guess is some sort of point and shoot camera. I'm not sure what you want exactly? Photos don't have to look like advertising.
Each of his series strike me as being well thought out. I liked this one the best, but they are all quite good.
posted by chunking express at 12:51 PM on December 2, 2009
I don't think these photos are poorly framed at all. There are some really great scenes in that series. More so, these weren't shot in a studio, so I don't think you can fault him for ending up with poorly lit shots. It looks like he's shot them on film with what I guess is some sort of point and shoot camera. I'm not sure what you want exactly? Photos don't have to look like advertising.
Each of his series strike me as being well thought out. I liked this one the best, but they are all quite good.
posted by chunking express at 12:51 PM on December 2, 2009
If I showed these photos to my mom, i'm not sure she'd like them, but i'm pretty sure she wouldn't be complaining about peoples clothing or haircuts.
I think you're missing the point of the hipster hate, so to speak, and how it influences the view on these photos.
One of the hallmarks of the "hipster ethos," as I would boldly define it (and feel free to disagree) is what I would call "aggressive artificial disregard." The clothing and the haircuts are outflows of that. In other words, you're a hipster first, a wearer-of-skinny-jeans second.
So, we end up with photos that show aggressive artificial disregard for lighting and traditional composition. And the subjects are people that show aggressive artificial disregard in general.
And that's the jumping off point for the "aggressive meh" reaction.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:28 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
I think you're missing the point of the hipster hate, so to speak, and how it influences the view on these photos.
One of the hallmarks of the "hipster ethos," as I would boldly define it (and feel free to disagree) is what I would call "aggressive artificial disregard." The clothing and the haircuts are outflows of that. In other words, you're a hipster first, a wearer-of-skinny-jeans second.
So, we end up with photos that show aggressive artificial disregard for lighting and traditional composition. And the subjects are people that show aggressive artificial disregard in general.
And that's the jumping off point for the "aggressive meh" reaction.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:28 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Sideways scrolling is big on photographers sites these days and I think it's one of the best ways to view a series of photographs. Suck it!
If you insist on scrolling sideways, do it with Flash or a side-scrolling div or even (and I can't believe I'm saying this) in a frame. Hell, spend 5 minutes learning some JQuery and use one of the many sideways viewers already written for that. Otherwise the navigation disappears, and your site looks like it was made in 1999.
Better yet, if you are a professional in a visual medium and you need to make a website, for god's sake hire a professional.
posted by coolguymichael at 1:42 PM on December 2, 2009
If you insist on scrolling sideways, do it with Flash or a side-scrolling div or even (and I can't believe I'm saying this) in a frame. Hell, spend 5 minutes learning some JQuery and use one of the many sideways viewers already written for that. Otherwise the navigation disappears, and your site looks like it was made in 1999.
Better yet, if you are a professional in a visual medium and you need to make a website, for god's sake hire a professional.
posted by coolguymichael at 1:42 PM on December 2, 2009
Photos don't have to look like advertising.
Except, like I said, they do; he's drawing, either knowingly or unknowingly, from an aesthetic that began with the (commercial--intended to sell crappy cameras for inflated prices) "shoot from the hip" philosophy of lomography and endures today in Miracle Whip ads. The look here seems deliberate enough, and is certainly consistent enough, to make me think he's intentionally trying to make these photos seem unintentional. Like I said, there was a time when this sort of thing was refreshing, raw, because most photography was studio photography, but that's not the case anymore (look in any issue of Nylon magazine, f'rinstance)--it's been co-opted commercially enough (or is fundamentally commercial enough; I'm not sure which) to be middle-of-the-road. And so a photo like this needs something more--compelling, challenging subject matter, to make a provocative statement, to be aesthetically beautiful. I don't see that in this series. Sorry.
If I showed these photos to my mom, i'm not sure she'd like them, but i'm pretty sure she wouldn't be complaining about peoples clothing or haircuts.
Heh, if I showed these to my mother, she'd ask me why I wanted her to look at some guy's snapshots of his friends. But then, when I took her to one of my graduate English classes, she called it a "book club for the overeducated." Snark's in the blood, I guess.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:06 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Except, like I said, they do; he's drawing, either knowingly or unknowingly, from an aesthetic that began with the (commercial--intended to sell crappy cameras for inflated prices) "shoot from the hip" philosophy of lomography and endures today in Miracle Whip ads. The look here seems deliberate enough, and is certainly consistent enough, to make me think he's intentionally trying to make these photos seem unintentional. Like I said, there was a time when this sort of thing was refreshing, raw, because most photography was studio photography, but that's not the case anymore (look in any issue of Nylon magazine, f'rinstance)--it's been co-opted commercially enough (or is fundamentally commercial enough; I'm not sure which) to be middle-of-the-road. And so a photo like this needs something more--compelling, challenging subject matter, to make a provocative statement, to be aesthetically beautiful. I don't see that in this series. Sorry.
If I showed these photos to my mom, i'm not sure she'd like them, but i'm pretty sure she wouldn't be complaining about peoples clothing or haircuts.
Heh, if I showed these to my mother, she'd ask me why I wanted her to look at some guy's snapshots of his friends. But then, when I took her to one of my graduate English classes, she called it a "book club for the overeducated." Snark's in the blood, I guess.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:06 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Fucking khakis, nimrod. KHAKIS! Pleated. Fucking. KHAKIS.
Chinos would also be acceptable.
posted by rusty at 2:22 PM on December 2, 2009
Chinos would also be acceptable.
posted by rusty at 2:22 PM on December 2, 2009
The idea is great; the execution falls completely flat.
I'm pretty tired of this sleazy/cheap/snapshot aesthetic in photography. I don't expect an artist to blow me away with his technical expertise (in fact, I think the cult of the virtuoso is a Bad Thing), but I do expect them to try.
The framing/colors/lighting in these photos are all wrong. Not caring about that isn't "raw" or "keeping it real"; it's just laziness—and, well, bad photography.
(Plus, all of these people look completely insufferable.)
posted by ixohoxi at 2:27 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty tired of this sleazy/cheap/snapshot aesthetic in photography. I don't expect an artist to blow me away with his technical expertise (in fact, I think the cult of the virtuoso is a Bad Thing), but I do expect them to try.
The framing/colors/lighting in these photos are all wrong. Not caring about that isn't "raw" or "keeping it real"; it's just laziness—and, well, bad photography.
(Plus, all of these people look completely insufferable.)
posted by ixohoxi at 2:27 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Even the minimalists took craft into account before they could choose to ignore it, otherwise no one would have taken them seriously.
Sure, but two notes: 1) 'craft' is little more than the ability to reproduce aesthetics of the past. While craft helps, art things without virtuosic craft are not inherently non-art things. Miles Davis, for example. He couldn't play with the technique of Bird and Dizzy, so he made beauty with what he had. A lot of great art is born from a handicap in craft. 2) That said, I don't know that these photos are necessarily lacking in craft. Perhaps I feel this way because I'm of the hipster generation (though not a hipster) and a major part of the aesthetic we seem to gravitate toward is that of the unproduced, the unedited. There are lots of historical reasons for this which I won't elaborate on; suffice it to say that *we* have an affinity, for better or worse, for this professional-amateur aesthetic. It's true in our music, in our art, in our writing, in our clothes. It isn't necessarily good, but then again, art never is. And yes, sometimes it takes great production to achieve the unproduced look - but I don't think there is anything necessarily bad about that. FWIW, I am of the opinion that it took a great deal of genius and study for John Cage to achieve 4'33."
Don't get me wrong - I don't think these are incredible photos, I do not think they should be hung in any reputable gallery or revered as a major photographic accomplishment. And I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone to like them (how silly that would be!), I'm simply trying to make the case for why they are worth more consideration than a quick write-off because the content/style is hipster-ish.
Reducing a photo to subject matter is not ridiculous at all - if the melody of a symphony is so terrible and distracting that it defines all the critical reviews [my emphasis] (see hipster hate in this thread), then yes, it may be reductionist but it is still the defining aspect in terms of how people view the photo.
But I fear you've missed my point, and I fear I didn't make it very well because melody perhaps was a bad example. To dismiss these photos on the grounds that you do not like the subject matter - kissing - seems akin perhaps to dismissing a symphony because you don't like, say, the sound of the viola (and who could blame you?) or a minor key - or something not intrinsically apart of the creative essence of a work. Think of Mapplethorpe - dude's photos have some tough subject matter, but the composition, the form, the light - they are beautiful photographs. While I concede that this does come down to personal taste at some point - and no one can convince you of the intrinsic beauty of the viola if you just don't like viola - I don't think it's grounds for devaluing an object as non-art.
One of the hallmarks of the "hipster ethos," as I would boldly define it (and feel free to disagree) is what I would call "aggressive artificial disregard." The clothing and the haircuts are outflows of that. In other words, you're a hipster first, a wearer-of-skinny-jeans second.
While I think the question of which comes first: defining oneself ideologically as a hipster v. exhibiting the common traits of a hipster is much more complex than you make it, I don't think you're that off the mark by claiming that a hallmark of hipster ethos is aggressive artificial disregard. Nor do I think that this is necessarily bad or new. Art has always necessarily been reactionary, and it tends to seek out ways to reject its history - and thus there is almost always an element of artificial disregard in any aesthetic movement. Artworks, which are by definition artificial - must attempt in some form to disregard - a disregard which is by its nature artificial - art/politics/history, or else what is their reason for existing? I do think, however, that the hipster ethos is perhaps an unfortunate and ineffective apotheosis in this regard, and one who's execution of this aesthetic tendency is generally, well, slightly pathetic and un-intellectualized.
So no, there isn't anything inherently wrong I suppose with having an 'aggressive meh' reaction to 'aggressive disregard,' though it seems not unlike any other instance of "those rascal kids and their terrible music and weird clothes!" or any other instance, for that matter, of a conservative aesthetic rejecting an emerging or radical one. I get it if you just don't like the way hipsters dress, the music they listen to, etc. - but a lot of the hipster hate on MeFi is much more a hatred of the thing itself, the idea of it, then I think is due or logical.
posted by Lutoslawski at 2:51 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Sure, but two notes: 1) 'craft' is little more than the ability to reproduce aesthetics of the past. While craft helps, art things without virtuosic craft are not inherently non-art things. Miles Davis, for example. He couldn't play with the technique of Bird and Dizzy, so he made beauty with what he had. A lot of great art is born from a handicap in craft. 2) That said, I don't know that these photos are necessarily lacking in craft. Perhaps I feel this way because I'm of the hipster generation (though not a hipster) and a major part of the aesthetic we seem to gravitate toward is that of the unproduced, the unedited. There are lots of historical reasons for this which I won't elaborate on; suffice it to say that *we* have an affinity, for better or worse, for this professional-amateur aesthetic. It's true in our music, in our art, in our writing, in our clothes. It isn't necessarily good, but then again, art never is. And yes, sometimes it takes great production to achieve the unproduced look - but I don't think there is anything necessarily bad about that. FWIW, I am of the opinion that it took a great deal of genius and study for John Cage to achieve 4'33."
Don't get me wrong - I don't think these are incredible photos, I do not think they should be hung in any reputable gallery or revered as a major photographic accomplishment. And I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone to like them (how silly that would be!), I'm simply trying to make the case for why they are worth more consideration than a quick write-off because the content/style is hipster-ish.
Reducing a photo to subject matter is not ridiculous at all - if the melody of a symphony is so terrible and distracting that it defines all the critical reviews [my emphasis] (see hipster hate in this thread), then yes, it may be reductionist but it is still the defining aspect in terms of how people view the photo.
But I fear you've missed my point, and I fear I didn't make it very well because melody perhaps was a bad example. To dismiss these photos on the grounds that you do not like the subject matter - kissing - seems akin perhaps to dismissing a symphony because you don't like, say, the sound of the viola (and who could blame you?) or a minor key - or something not intrinsically apart of the creative essence of a work. Think of Mapplethorpe - dude's photos have some tough subject matter, but the composition, the form, the light - they are beautiful photographs. While I concede that this does come down to personal taste at some point - and no one can convince you of the intrinsic beauty of the viola if you just don't like viola - I don't think it's grounds for devaluing an object as non-art.
One of the hallmarks of the "hipster ethos," as I would boldly define it (and feel free to disagree) is what I would call "aggressive artificial disregard." The clothing and the haircuts are outflows of that. In other words, you're a hipster first, a wearer-of-skinny-jeans second.
While I think the question of which comes first: defining oneself ideologically as a hipster v. exhibiting the common traits of a hipster is much more complex than you make it, I don't think you're that off the mark by claiming that a hallmark of hipster ethos is aggressive artificial disregard. Nor do I think that this is necessarily bad or new. Art has always necessarily been reactionary, and it tends to seek out ways to reject its history - and thus there is almost always an element of artificial disregard in any aesthetic movement. Artworks, which are by definition artificial - must attempt in some form to disregard - a disregard which is by its nature artificial - art/politics/history, or else what is their reason for existing? I do think, however, that the hipster ethos is perhaps an unfortunate and ineffective apotheosis in this regard, and one who's execution of this aesthetic tendency is generally, well, slightly pathetic and un-intellectualized.
So no, there isn't anything inherently wrong I suppose with having an 'aggressive meh' reaction to 'aggressive disregard,' though it seems not unlike any other instance of "those rascal kids and their terrible music and weird clothes!" or any other instance, for that matter, of a conservative aesthetic rejecting an emerging or radical one. I get it if you just don't like the way hipsters dress, the music they listen to, etc. - but a lot of the hipster hate on MeFi is much more a hatred of the thing itself, the idea of it, then I think is due or logical.
posted by Lutoslawski at 2:51 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Lutoslawski: I do not think they should be hung in any reputable gallery
FWIW, I've been reading through Suzi Gablik's excellent Conversations Before the End of Time, and I'm now fairly solidly against the entire idea of the 'reputable gallery.'
posted by shakespeherian at 2:54 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
FWIW, I've been reading through Suzi Gablik's excellent Conversations Before the End of Time, and I'm now fairly solidly against the entire idea of the 'reputable gallery.'
posted by shakespeherian at 2:54 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I can't get past how much I hate the side scrolling.
Also, I don't think the pictures are anything special either.
posted by imjustsaying at 2:55 PM on December 2, 2009
Also, I don't think the pictures are anything special either.
posted by imjustsaying at 2:55 PM on December 2, 2009
FWIW, I've been reading through Suzi Gablik's excellent Conversations Before the End of Time, and I'm now fairly solidly against the entire idea of the 'reputable gallery.'
Oh no totally, I could not agree with you more. In fact, I'm generally against the whole notion of the m(o)us(ol)eum, arbitrary destroyer of art and its purpose. I offered that statement simply to say that I like the photos but don't think they are genius or something.
posted by Lutoslawski at 2:57 PM on December 2, 2009
Oh no totally, I could not agree with you more. In fact, I'm generally against the whole notion of the m(o)us(ol)eum, arbitrary destroyer of art and its purpose. I offered that statement simply to say that I like the photos but don't think they are genius or something.
posted by Lutoslawski at 2:57 PM on December 2, 2009
Understood. If you haven't read Conversations, I highly recommend it-- Gablik sits down with a few dozen artists, critics, philosophers, etc., one after the other, creating an extended 500-page conversation about the role and definition and meaning of art.
posted by shakespeherian at 3:03 PM on December 2, 2009
posted by shakespeherian at 3:03 PM on December 2, 2009
Great recommendation, Shakespeherian! Thanks!
posted by Lutoslawski at 3:14 PM on December 2, 2009
posted by Lutoslawski at 3:14 PM on December 2, 2009
To the extent that these photographs are characterized by a hipster aesthetic (and I think they definitely are), then consideration and criticism of the hipster aesthetic is a valid and even necessary part of evaluating the photographs.
Cool Papa Bell puts it well. The hipster aesthetic is a deliberate, pointed effort to be (or appear) cheap/stupid/tasteless/thoughtless. It's not merely an apathy toward taste and refinement and craft (and, yes, I realize these are highly subjective terms)—or an idiosyncratic take on those concepts—but a preening antipathy toward those things. It goes out of its way to be shoddy and tacky and artless. The result (as CPB notes) is an aesthetic that's full of artifice (because it's all very deliberate), but (intentionally!) lacking in art.
And lots of artifice + precious little art is practically the definition of pretension, isn't it? I'm not sure what it's supposed to say or achieve or prove. I think the hipsters are under the impression that drinking PBR and dressing like special-ed kids circa 1986 and dancing to Miami Sound Machine (again, precisely because those things are awful) is some kind of grand postmodern gesture, but it just strikes me as smug and vapid. It's not even an aesthetic of the grotesque (because that requires acknowledgment of the beautiful); it's not an appreciation for overlooked beauty in unfashionable places; it's just a celebration of the stupid.
So, I do not dislike these photographs because I'm prejudiced against hipsters. I dislike them because the artist has gone out of his way to make sure the photographs have nothing to recommend them.
posted by ixohoxi at 3:33 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Cool Papa Bell puts it well. The hipster aesthetic is a deliberate, pointed effort to be (or appear) cheap/stupid/tasteless/thoughtless. It's not merely an apathy toward taste and refinement and craft (and, yes, I realize these are highly subjective terms)—or an idiosyncratic take on those concepts—but a preening antipathy toward those things. It goes out of its way to be shoddy and tacky and artless. The result (as CPB notes) is an aesthetic that's full of artifice (because it's all very deliberate), but (intentionally!) lacking in art.
And lots of artifice + precious little art is practically the definition of pretension, isn't it? I'm not sure what it's supposed to say or achieve or prove. I think the hipsters are under the impression that drinking PBR and dressing like special-ed kids circa 1986 and dancing to Miami Sound Machine (again, precisely because those things are awful) is some kind of grand postmodern gesture, but it just strikes me as smug and vapid. It's not even an aesthetic of the grotesque (because that requires acknowledgment of the beautiful); it's not an appreciation for overlooked beauty in unfashionable places; it's just a celebration of the stupid.
So, I do not dislike these photographs because I'm prejudiced against hipsters. I dislike them because the artist has gone out of his way to make sure the photographs have nothing to recommend them.
posted by ixohoxi at 3:33 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
An interview with Todd Fisher.
posted by chunking express at 3:39 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by chunking express at 3:39 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
If you insist on scrolling sideways, do it with Flash or a side-scrolling div... Otherwise the navigation disappears
I'm really surprised by the hatred for side-scrolling, but I hadn't thought about what happens to the navigation. A scrollable div is a good solution.
posted by rottytooth at 3:44 PM on December 2, 2009
I'm really surprised by the hatred for side-scrolling, but I hadn't thought about what happens to the navigation. A scrollable div is a good solution.
posted by rottytooth at 3:44 PM on December 2, 2009
The hipster aesthetic is a deliberate, pointed effort to be (or appear) cheap/stupid/tasteless/thoughtless.
Honestly, I just don't think this is correct. I'm not a great fan of this particular photo project, but I think that a large motivating component of what people here are terming the 'hipster aesthetic' is a rejection of the modernist paradigm of constant cultural and aesthetic progress via the achievements of a handful of 'geniuses.' For too long, the argument goes, canonized aesthetic theory has been about embracing the new and innovative, and even after postmodernism hit, in which it was decided that there isn't any such thing as 'new' or 'innovative,' canonized aesthetic theory became about embracing the newest and most innovative way of pointing out that there's no such thing as new and innovative. Part of what I see as the project of the 'hipster aesthetic' is a democratization of art, a transition that is occurring simultaneously with other democratizations of culture, e.g. journalism --> blogosphere. A part of this shift comes from hip-hop aesthetics and the ideas of sampling, collage, and mashups-- the doing away with notions of individual independent Artists-with-a-capital-A. Again, I'm not defending this particular photo project, but I think that to dismiss 'hipster aesthetics' as aggressive tackiness is to overlook the motivation and impetus behind particular aesthetic choices that are occurring.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:32 PM on December 2, 2009
Honestly, I just don't think this is correct. I'm not a great fan of this particular photo project, but I think that a large motivating component of what people here are terming the 'hipster aesthetic' is a rejection of the modernist paradigm of constant cultural and aesthetic progress via the achievements of a handful of 'geniuses.' For too long, the argument goes, canonized aesthetic theory has been about embracing the new and innovative, and even after postmodernism hit, in which it was decided that there isn't any such thing as 'new' or 'innovative,' canonized aesthetic theory became about embracing the newest and most innovative way of pointing out that there's no such thing as new and innovative. Part of what I see as the project of the 'hipster aesthetic' is a democratization of art, a transition that is occurring simultaneously with other democratizations of culture, e.g. journalism --> blogosphere. A part of this shift comes from hip-hop aesthetics and the ideas of sampling, collage, and mashups-- the doing away with notions of individual independent Artists-with-a-capital-A. Again, I'm not defending this particular photo project, but I think that to dismiss 'hipster aesthetics' as aggressive tackiness is to overlook the motivation and impetus behind particular aesthetic choices that are occurring.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:32 PM on December 2, 2009
I wonder if he told these people to kiss? Because if not those are some interesting situations to be macking in.
posted by blaynerb at 5:03 PM on December 2, 2009
posted by blaynerb at 5:03 PM on December 2, 2009
In fact, I'm almost positive some of these are slightly posed. Group make out sessions just seem unrealistic. Even if they are hipsters.
posted by blaynerb at 5:08 PM on December 2, 2009
posted by blaynerb at 5:08 PM on December 2, 2009
I think that a large motivating component of what people here are terming the 'hipster aesthetic' is a rejection of the modernist paradigm of constant cultural and aesthetic progress via the achievements of a handful of 'geniuses.'
Which would make perfect sense if something new was actually being created, and if not something new, then at least something coherent. About the closest you'll get to hipster-ism is Dadaism. At least behind Dadaism, there's usually something there. I mean, I really can see the nude descending the staircase, if I stand back and squint.
A part of this shift comes from hip-hop aesthetics and the ideas of sampling, collage, and mashups
The purpose of sampling, collage and mash-ups is the creation of something new, or a new perspective on something old.
I just don't think I'm getting anything from a bearded dude on a fixie wearing a Star Wars T-shirt, other than, "I demand that you look at me while I am actively rejecting the things that I imagine you find appealing."
I mean, I'm not getting anything except the pizza I ordered. Should I tip him? Or will he reject my bourgeois notion of "showing gratitude?"
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:37 PM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Which would make perfect sense if something new was actually being created, and if not something new, then at least something coherent. About the closest you'll get to hipster-ism is Dadaism. At least behind Dadaism, there's usually something there. I mean, I really can see the nude descending the staircase, if I stand back and squint.
A part of this shift comes from hip-hop aesthetics and the ideas of sampling, collage, and mashups
The purpose of sampling, collage and mash-ups is the creation of something new, or a new perspective on something old.
I just don't think I'm getting anything from a bearded dude on a fixie wearing a Star Wars T-shirt, other than, "I demand that you look at me while I am actively rejecting the things that I imagine you find appealing."
I mean, I'm not getting anything except the pizza I ordered. Should I tip him? Or will he reject my bourgeois notion of "showing gratitude?"
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:37 PM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Why should you get anything from him except your pizza? I mean, why can't you accept that he's just a dude who wears what he likes, keeps his hair how he likes, and rides a fixie 'cause it's (sometimes) practical and also cool?
There's often a lot of slippage in these hipster discussions, where an individual hipster, a particular aesthetic, a drink, a shirt, a hairstyle, an artist, a group of artists ... all the varied things that make up the Youth of the Nation and what they do or like get painted with the broad brush of Hipster, and each part asked to answer for the perceived sins of the other. It just doesn't work like that.
posted by wemayfreeze at 5:48 PM on December 2, 2009
There's often a lot of slippage in these hipster discussions, where an individual hipster, a particular aesthetic, a drink, a shirt, a hairstyle, an artist, a group of artists ... all the varied things that make up the Youth of the Nation and what they do or like get painted with the broad brush of Hipster, and each part asked to answer for the perceived sins of the other. It just doesn't work like that.
posted by wemayfreeze at 5:48 PM on December 2, 2009
Why is the "hipster" bad?
He/she is a walking advertisement for ideas from exactly 5 minutes into the future. All her observations, all her music, all her most outspoken her, come from there. The same five minutes, the same future, always. That is why she's annoying. It's like someone invented a time machine and used it for nothing more than stealing the punchline off the end of jokes. These people are all of us, and are an infinite disappointment for the exact same reason as the amazing banality of advertisement has become our generation's art, its cathedral and its requiem. The enormity of western culture, and used for that. Tivo it away. Tivo us all away.
posted by kid ichorous at 6:51 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
He/she is a walking advertisement for ideas from exactly 5 minutes into the future. All her observations, all her music, all her most outspoken her, come from there. The same five minutes, the same future, always. That is why she's annoying. It's like someone invented a time machine and used it for nothing more than stealing the punchline off the end of jokes. These people are all of us, and are an infinite disappointment for the exact same reason as the amazing banality of advertisement has become our generation's art, its cathedral and its requiem. The enormity of western culture, and used for that. Tivo it away. Tivo us all away.
posted by kid ichorous at 6:51 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Why is the "hipster" bad?
He/she is a walking advertisement for ideas from exactly 5 minutes into the future. All her observations, all her music, all her most outspoken her, come from there. The same five minutes, the same future, always. That is why she's annoying. It's like someone invented a time machine and used it for nothing more than stealing the punchline off the end of jokes. These people are all of us, and are an infinite disappointment for the exact same reason as the amazing banality of advertisement has become our generation's art, its cathedral and its requiem. The enormity of western culture, and used for that. Tivo it away. Tivo us all away.
I am going to silk screen this on an American Apparel T-shirt.
posted by grouse at 7:04 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
He/she is a walking advertisement for ideas from exactly 5 minutes into the future. All her observations, all her music, all her most outspoken her, come from there. The same five minutes, the same future, always. That is why she's annoying. It's like someone invented a time machine and used it for nothing more than stealing the punchline off the end of jokes. These people are all of us, and are an infinite disappointment for the exact same reason as the amazing banality of advertisement has become our generation's art, its cathedral and its requiem. The enormity of western culture, and used for that. Tivo it away. Tivo us all away.
I am going to silk screen this on an American Apparel T-shirt.
posted by grouse at 7:04 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, as I was typing that out I realized that my dislike of hipsters is really just twisted self-hatred at the enormous reach of advertising and scripted, secondhand thought into my own decision making. I don't really hate hipsters, I hate the fact that the most 'successful' art of our age exists merely to create them.
posted by kid ichorous at 7:09 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by kid ichorous at 7:09 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
rottytooth: I'm really surprised by the hatred for side-scrolling, but I hadn't thought about what happens to the navigation. A scrollable div is a good solution
Take this thread as an example. At this moment, it has a little under 700 posts. Now imagine when you enter that thread I break your Page Up & Down buttons and the scroll wheel--the interface tools that let you break up your consumption into manageable chunks.
You now have to stop, find the little context-bar in your browser and figure out the drag-distance-to-movement ratio based on the unknown amount of content on the page. Or use the arrow keys, which are just slow enough to make my eyes hurt.
Some of the web designers can probably elaborate on other reasons why people hate side-scrolling so much, but you could summarize with: "Unless you have a trackball, side-scrolling is a poorly-supported feature."
posted by Decimask at 7:31 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Take this thread as an example. At this moment, it has a little under 700 posts. Now imagine when you enter that thread I break your Page Up & Down buttons and the scroll wheel--the interface tools that let you break up your consumption into manageable chunks.
You now have to stop, find the little context-bar in your browser and figure out the drag-distance-to-movement ratio based on the unknown amount of content on the page. Or use the arrow keys, which are just slow enough to make my eyes hurt.
Some of the web designers can probably elaborate on other reasons why people hate side-scrolling so much, but you could summarize with: "Unless you have a trackball, side-scrolling is a poorly-supported feature."
posted by Decimask at 7:31 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
To the extent that these photographs are characterized by a hipster aesthetic (and I think they definitely are), then consideration and criticism of the hipster aesthetic is a valid and even necessary part of evaluating the photographs.
No, not necessarily. Many theories of aesthetics completely reject trying to understand art by subsuming the work under some sort of preconditioned category. I would argue, even, that anyone who does this must experience art in horrifically base and shallow ways. And besides, you are completely misunderstanding the relationship between artworks and the 'movement' or aesthetic they are affiliated with.
The hipster aesthetic is a deliberate, pointed effort to be (or appear) cheap/stupid/tasteless/thoughtless. It's not merely an apathy toward taste and refinement and craft (and, yes, I realize these are highly subjective terms)—or an idiosyncratic take on those concepts—but a preening antipathy toward those things. It goes out of its way to be shoddy and tacky and artless. The result (as CPB notes) is an aesthetic that's full of artifice (because it's all very deliberate), but (intentionally!) lacking in art.
To put it bluntly, no. I think at a basic level, and I don't mean to be an asshole here really, you don't have a very good understanding of art history or aesthetic theory. You seem to be stuck in Hume and we are way past Danto here in the now. Craft/refinement/taste/beauty...these things have not been really relevant to the discussion of art for quite some time. What is interesting about art and what makes artworks interesting is far beyond these innocent and ignorant ideals.
And sorry, but aesthetics is the very study of artifice, moron. And to say that an aesthetic is 'lacking' in art makes you sound not only like a unread nimrod, but an asshole with a giant pretentious stick up your ass. Only insecure and unenlightened people get off by categorizing aesthetic objects as art or not. Get out of the fucking 19th century.
Group make out sessions just seem unrealistic.
Um...I feel really, really bad for you. No, they are not unrealistic. Get out and live a little my friend.
posted by Lutoslawski at 9:29 PM on December 2, 2009
I don't mean to be an asshole here really... aesthetics is the very study of artifice, moron... you sound not only like a unread nimrod, but an asshole with a giant pretentious stick up your ass... insecure and unenlightened people... Get out of the fucking 19th century... I feel really, really bad for you.
I hope we never find out what you're like when you do mean to be an asshole.
posted by grouse at 9:43 PM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
I hope we never find out what you're like when you do mean to be an asshole.
posted by grouse at 9:43 PM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Lutoslawski, I'm with you in your approach to this work, but you're being an ass. Pulling the "clearly you are an uneducated maroon" card is pretty shitty.
posted by wemayfreeze at 10:15 PM on December 2, 2009
posted by wemayfreeze at 10:15 PM on December 2, 2009
Or use the arrow keys, which are just slow enough to make my eyes hurt.
Now I get why the side scroll didn't bother me - I always use my arrow keys to scroll.
Also, can people please agree on a definition of hipster? It's like, one person defines them and I'm all 'hey, I fit that!' then someone else is all 'no, they have to have x quality as well' and I'm like 'oh, well, I guess I'm not then' and then someone else disagrees and jesus!
posted by jacalata at 10:32 PM on December 2, 2009
Now I get why the side scroll didn't bother me - I always use my arrow keys to scroll.
Also, can people please agree on a definition of hipster? It's like, one person defines them and I'm all 'hey, I fit that!' then someone else is all 'no, they have to have x quality as well' and I'm like 'oh, well, I guess I'm not then' and then someone else disagrees and jesus!
posted by jacalata at 10:32 PM on December 2, 2009
Hume … Danto … innocent and ignorant … moron … unread nimrod … asshole with a giant pretentious stick up your ass … insecure and unenlightened … get out of the fucking 19th century
You, sir, are the one who comes across as pretentious and insecure. This discussion was already getting a bit silly, and frankly I have better things to do than respond to your abusive misinterpretation of my remarks.
posted by ixohoxi at 8:13 AM on December 3, 2009
You, sir, are the one who comes across as pretentious and insecure. This discussion was already getting a bit silly, and frankly I have better things to do than respond to your abusive misinterpretation of my remarks.
posted by ixohoxi at 8:13 AM on December 3, 2009
Huh. An entire thread of people thoughtlessly bashing a culture because of the way they dress and keep their hair...and I'm the asshole. Only on Metafilter.
posted by Lutoslawski at 8:46 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Lutoslawski at 8:46 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Just to be clear, the crucial difference is between being dismissive or critical of an artist and his art, a culture, it's people, etc. etc. ... and insulting an individual member of the MeFi community. The latter don't fly around these parts.
posted by wemayfreeze at 9:57 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by wemayfreeze at 9:57 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
The latter don't fly around these parts.
I was out of line and my emotions about the topic got in the way of reason. I should not have insulted anyone, and I apologize.
In my own defense, wemayfreeze, fwiw, insulting an entire subculture does effect people here individually, as it does whenever a group is insulted as a whole. I'm not a lover of hipster culture either, but the snide remarks about their style and culture, the for some reason acceptable hate and stereotyping that comes up in every thread involving a possible 'hipster' - it vexes me. Skinny jeans and unkempt hair doesn't automatically render you little more than fuel for the sort of mean fodder that this aesthetic generates around here. It just sucks that, in this case for example, we are presented with a series of photos and the auto reaction is, "ah! stylish young people in cities. they suck! this sucks!" It isn't, imo, a good way to consider art or people.
Anyway, apologies again for being such an asshole. Clearly I am not the exemplar of my own beliefs. I just don't think it's very fair to anyone to make an artist have to automatically defend themselves for choosing to capture an aesthetic that some people find annoying.
posted by Lutoslawski at 11:22 AM on December 3, 2009
I was out of line and my emotions about the topic got in the way of reason. I should not have insulted anyone, and I apologize.
In my own defense, wemayfreeze, fwiw, insulting an entire subculture does effect people here individually, as it does whenever a group is insulted as a whole. I'm not a lover of hipster culture either, but the snide remarks about their style and culture, the for some reason acceptable hate and stereotyping that comes up in every thread involving a possible 'hipster' - it vexes me. Skinny jeans and unkempt hair doesn't automatically render you little more than fuel for the sort of mean fodder that this aesthetic generates around here. It just sucks that, in this case for example, we are presented with a series of photos and the auto reaction is, "ah! stylish young people in cities. they suck! this sucks!" It isn't, imo, a good way to consider art or people.
Anyway, apologies again for being such an asshole. Clearly I am not the exemplar of my own beliefs. I just don't think it's very fair to anyone to make an artist have to automatically defend themselves for choosing to capture an aesthetic that some people find annoying.
posted by Lutoslawski at 11:22 AM on December 3, 2009
For what it's worth, I'm pretty tired of the hipster hatred as well, for a few reasons:
posted by grouse at 11:33 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
- No one seems to agree on what a hipster is.
- Many of the people I have known who profess a hatred of hipsters themselves engage in what I think of as hipster-related culture, but they redefine "hipster" to mean only the aspects they hate.
- It's just tedious.
posted by grouse at 11:33 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
As I said up thread, how are these photos of hipsters. Or conversely, what would NOT be a picture of a hipster. Well, I guess pictures of kittens for starters, but I'm willing to bet you'd find someone who'd be all, 'that kittens fur is so messy, fucking hipster cat thinks he's so cool'.
posted by chunking express at 11:43 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by chunking express at 11:43 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
No one seems to agree on what a hipster is.
Or conversely, what would NOT be a picture of a hipster.
This. Absolutely this. 'Hipster' hate is usually no more than 'young urbanite' hate or hate on anything that could potentially be related to a young urbanite. I think this is why it irks me so; the hating rarely seems more than 'grar those damn kids all over my lawn...' It's exhausting.
posted by Lutoslawski at 12:11 PM on December 3, 2009
Or conversely, what would NOT be a picture of a hipster.
This. Absolutely this. 'Hipster' hate is usually no more than 'young urbanite' hate or hate on anything that could potentially be related to a young urbanite. I think this is why it irks me so; the hating rarely seems more than 'grar those damn kids all over my lawn...' It's exhausting.
posted by Lutoslawski at 12:11 PM on December 3, 2009
Many of the people I have known who profess a hatred of hipsters themselves engage in what I think of as hipster-related culture, but they redefine "hipster" to mean only the aspects they hate.
Well, of course. It's largely used as a pejorative term, so of course people are going to try to twist the term around so it doesn't apply to them (fuck, myself included, upthread). That doesn't mean that it's not potentially a useful one in that you can use it to communicate about a commonly understood subculture of people.
As I said up thread, how are these photos of hipsters. Or conversely, what would NOT be a picture of a hipster. Well, I guess pictures of kittens for starters, but I'm willing to bet you'd find someone who'd be all, 'that kittens fur is so messy, fucking hipster cat thinks he's so cool'.
C'mon, this strikes me as so disingenuous. Do you really not know what people mean when they say "hipster"? Ok. Here's a photo series of people who aren't hipsters--oh look, and here's another one by the same photographer. But when you take a series of photos of trendy, attractive, svelte, urban twenty somethings, using trendy photographic techniques (and I mean, you can buy lomo-style cameras at Urban Outfitters--so this is pretty trendy), you're probably a hipster photographer. And maybe that's not the end of the world--particularly if you're into that aesthetic. But it would make a lot more sense to me to say "Hell, I like these despite, or maybe because of, their hipster aesthetic" than it does to act like you have no idea what people are talking about.
To me, that's just as exhausting.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:35 PM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Well, of course. It's largely used as a pejorative term, so of course people are going to try to twist the term around so it doesn't apply to them (fuck, myself included, upthread). That doesn't mean that it's not potentially a useful one in that you can use it to communicate about a commonly understood subculture of people.
As I said up thread, how are these photos of hipsters. Or conversely, what would NOT be a picture of a hipster. Well, I guess pictures of kittens for starters, but I'm willing to bet you'd find someone who'd be all, 'that kittens fur is so messy, fucking hipster cat thinks he's so cool'.
C'mon, this strikes me as so disingenuous. Do you really not know what people mean when they say "hipster"? Ok. Here's a photo series of people who aren't hipsters--oh look, and here's another one by the same photographer. But when you take a series of photos of trendy, attractive, svelte, urban twenty somethings, using trendy photographic techniques (and I mean, you can buy lomo-style cameras at Urban Outfitters--so this is pretty trendy), you're probably a hipster photographer. And maybe that's not the end of the world--particularly if you're into that aesthetic. But it would make a lot more sense to me to say "Hell, I like these despite, or maybe because of, their hipster aesthetic" than it does to act like you have no idea what people are talking about.
To me, that's just as exhausting.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:35 PM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
It's largely used as a pejorative term, so of course people are going to try to twist the term around so it doesn't apply to them (fuck, myself included, upthread). That doesn't mean that it's not potentially a useful one in that you can use it to communicate about a commonly understood subculture of people.
I didn't say that it wasn't a potentially useful term in some cases. But in the context of raging against "hipsters" I don't think it is.
posted by grouse at 3:46 PM on December 3, 2009
I didn't say that it wasn't a potentially useful term in some cases. But in the context of raging against "hipsters" I don't think it is.
posted by grouse at 3:46 PM on December 3, 2009
I didn't say that it wasn't a potentially useful term in some cases. But in the context of raging against "hipsters" I don't think it is.
Eh. I guess that depends how much you enjoy raging about hipsters.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:49 PM on December 3, 2009
Eh. I guess that depends how much you enjoy raging about hipsters.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:49 PM on December 3, 2009
Yeah but hipsters throw the best ragers, is all I'm saying.
posted by wemayfreeze at 6:17 PM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by wemayfreeze at 6:17 PM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yeah but hipsters throw the best ragers, is all I'm saying.
awwwww shit. wemayfreeze for the win. (it's true, btw, about the ragers.)
posted by Lutoslawski at 7:59 PM on December 3, 2009
PhoBWanKenobi, when I think of hipster photography -- which I think is a stupid term, but whatever -- I don't think of lomography, I think of Last Night's Party, and that sort of party-picture. Nevermind that what characterizes that whole lomography movement is the whole long exposure blurry as fuck shoot from the hip aesthetic. Or using a fucking Holga. So yeah, this isn't that. Also, there is nothing 'trendy' about lomography. Unless we take a time machine back to 2005. Also, Hipsters have a lock on any photo of young people? That makes no sense.
It's cool if you guys don't like these photos though. There's no accounting for taste.
OH SNAP!?
posted by chunking express at 6:50 AM on December 4, 2009
It's cool if you guys don't like these photos though. There's no accounting for taste.
OH SNAP!?
posted by chunking express at 6:50 AM on December 4, 2009
Actually, plenty of lomo pics are just bad point-and-shoot shots with a washed-out flash. And I didn't say pics of young people were automatically pics of hipsters--just that pics of people who are obviously hipsters are . . . pics of hipsters. These are. Sorry?
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:13 AM on December 4, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:13 AM on December 4, 2009
Though I agree with you about last night's party. Those are hipsters, too. Fucking hipsters.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:15 AM on December 4, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:15 AM on December 4, 2009
« Older Don't knock it, that's two maybe three large... | Have A Raver Flashback Today Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I'll repeat, I *really* love the raw quality of the pics.
posted by Xoebe at 7:45 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]