Can too much technology stifle creativity?

**RICHARD L.** · 06-21-2021, 01:02 PM - **3 Likes**

Modern cameras integrate 100 years of photographic technique and knowledge and permit a novice to take perfectly exposed images. "Art" depends on the content of the images, though.

Regards

**HippyHippo** · 06-21-2021, 01:47 PM

Yes, it can, but humans will always seek to overcome it.

Generally speaking, technology creates new possibilities as a catalyst for creativity. A good example is photoshop: we might not always like the outputs from it, but it allows us to subvert norms and experiment in ways previously not possible. On this basis technology has to be a good thing for creativity.

However more recent technological advances such as AI can have the opposite effect by normalising and standardising image aesthetics, composition and other aspects. The chance of ‘happy accidents’ reduces as the ‘best’ camera settings and presets are chosen automatically. Social media tools such as Instagram have been shown to stifle creativity as the desire to get ‘the look’ or ‘the location’ becomes formulaic.
Inevitably work then starts to all look the same (look at car design over the past 70 years as a parallel. Imaginative fins and chrome on a ‘59 Chevy gave way to the similar-looking ‘jellymoulds’ of today as wind tunnels and computers optimise designs for efficiency).

But humans will always seek to subvert. The thing I’m fascinated in is how humans will increasingly look to oppose the algorithms and AI (for it is inevitable that we will try) for our own creative, political and social reasons. Bring it on, I say! We can’t let the computers win!

Roland Karlsson · 06-21-2021, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by RICHARD L.

Modern cameras integrate 100 years of photographic technique and knowledge and permit a novice to take perfectly exposed images. "Art" depends on the content of the images, though.

Regards

Hmmmm ... art? The original question was about creativity.

There is no need for any creativity to create art.

**BigMackCam** · 06-21-2021, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Roland Karlsson

Hmmmm ... art? The original question was about creativity.

There is no need for any creativity to create art.

But what is art, if not the expression of creative imagination and/or interpretation?

Roland Karlsson · 06-21-2021, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

But what is art, if not the expression of creative imagination and/or interpretation?

Art means artifact, something man made. And often you mean something that is made solely for its own sake, that have no other purpose. Its a painting or a statue or something that is only meant for looking at.

Hopefully, the artifact is the result of a creative process. But, there is no limit on how feeble this process has been.

Marcel Duchamp signed an urinoar with R. Mutt and called it art. And then it WAS art. The signing made it useless as an urinoar, and then it existed for its own purpose, only to look at.

What Duchamp made was a statement. Look I can make anything into art.

/Roland

jmcsys · 06-21-2021, 03:22 PM - **1 Like**

Before retirement I was a computer geek developing systems for laboratory data acquisition and for flight simulation. Many of those systems were computer/user interfaces. The key to doing that well was to place myself in the position of the user and anticipate how they would interact if they had a choice. Good interfaces are like musical instruments and make the technology an extension of the user himself. A poor interface is a burden to use and feels like an impediment to accessing the technology. A good interface becomes second nature and requires little thought to use spontaneously and effectively. Bad ones are a nightmare and take time and thought away from effective use. Again, good interfaces make a computer or a fancy camera function like an extension of the user’s own body and mind.

So for me, we are asking the wrong question. It’s not about more tech blocking the creative use of a camera. It is about the controls and interface making all that tech an immediate, intuitive, and effortless extension of the photographer’s artistic mind.

**clackers** · 06-21-2021, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by niels hansen

I just did a little researh on Shumilova. what I see is absolutely forgettable: sugar sweet and sentimental. Is her exposuremeter broken?

The setting is her farm, the subjects are her own children and animals, Niels, she takes pictures of things dear to her, in a postprocessing style inspired by her classical painting background.

If you like, let's go to a W. Eugene Smith exhibition instead. Happy now? First drink is on me.

Or you can spend the evening with @house. He prefers to look at framed advertisements for rental apartments, so have fun!

Last edited by clackers; 06-21-2021 at 04:53 PM.

**BigMackCam** · 06-21-2021, 10:44 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by Roland Karlsson

Art means artifact, something man made. And often you mean something that is made solely for its own sake, that have no other purpose. Its a painting or a statue or something that is only meant for looking at.

Hopefully, the artifact is the result of a creative process. But, there is no limit on how feeble this process has been.

With respect, Roland, I'd challenge at least some of this. Specifically, art does not mean artefact. An artefact is indeed a man-made object - perhaps an item of utility such as a brick, tool, cup, piece of clothing; or, equally, an objet d'art such as a painting, sculpture or decorative item, for example. Art, on the other hand, is the expression of creative imagination and/or interpretation, intended to elicit feeling and emotion, or to challenge us in some way. That expression may take the form of a tangible, enduring artefact - a physical object such as a painting, sculpture, photograph etc. - or it may be intangible, abstract and/or ephemeral in nature, e.g. dance, theatre or musical performance.

[These are my own definitions, but I believe they'll broadly tally with respected sources such as the OED, Merriam-Webster etc.]

Originally posted by Roland Karlsson

Marcel Duchamp signed an urinoar with R. Mutt and called it art. And then it WAS art. The signing made it useless as an urinoar, and then it existed for its own purpose, only to look at.

What Duchamp made was a statement. Look I can make anything into art.

This is a perfect example. A urinal is an artefact - a man-made object borne of utility. Duchamp's "Fountain" is art... He imagined and subsequently created the concept of modifying, re-purposing and representing a ready-made artefact as an artistic work - cocking a snook at the establishment, challenging the very notion and limits of what constitutes art and eliciting emotions (among them, anger or outrage) therein. Had I been alive at the time, I'd probably have been as resistant to his concept as the traditionalists... but there's no doubting that creativity was involved (if not, one might reasonably argue, skill).

Art and creativity are inextricably linked, the former being a product of the latter. Artefact and creativity, not necessarily so...

My apologies to the OP for venturing rather off-topic, here

**carlwood** · 06-21-2021, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Kendra59

This is a question I have been pondering on for quite a while. My answer is yes, IF a photographer doesn’t understand the fundamental principles of photography, or how to adjust their cameras to get the results they are looking for.

My views were formed over the last decade, when I went from being quite comfortable with using my Nikon DSLR camera and understanding how to get pretty good results, to having several strokes and not being able to engage with photography AT all for almost 5 years, to buying and using a medium format film camera with MF lenses to “relearn the fundamentals again” to where I am today, using a Pentax K-50 DSLR with a mix of AF and MF lenses and having fun again.

I have found a level of technology that works for me. It forces me to work on improving my own skills, it gives me more to be proud of when I master something new (or something I used to know, but forgot), and it makes me happy. If I upgrade to a different camera body, it would only be so I could get a full-frame camera, and have my film era MF lenses work as they were designed to.

More advanced cameras and lenses does not automatically make a better photographer. Without a better understanding of photography, the creative process, and how to get the most from our equipment, we can only get so far.

Back in the 1960s there was a photographer in the UK who used to make great shots with a Kodak Brownie 127. As the Brownie had a fixed shutter speed and iris, he used different speed films to make up for the lack of technology.

house · 06-22-2021, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Roland Karlsson

What Duchamp made was a statement. Look I can make anything into art.

This is a common interpretation. But his readymades *are* amazing as things in a gallery. The objects really are transformed when our relation to them and their display change. The urinal is an amazing thing and so is the bottle rack. You can't really appreciate that when using it as intented. Flipped over and on display it is quite the thing. He made great choices as to what readymades to choose and how to present them.

https://flic.kr/p/bbCw

Originally posted by clackers

Or you can spend the evening with @house. He prefers to look at framed advertisements for rental apartments, so have fun!

Perfect post in relation to the separate Duchamp discussion. What I proposed for your real estate photos would work much in the way Duchamps readymades do. A curation and display of local real estate photographs would probably leave a lasting impression. It will speak volumes about the values and dreams of people in that locale at this point in time. The framing and display will change how they are read and make new unintended readings possible. With Shumilova this is basically impossible, the photographs are just as empty and trite however you choose to display them.

**BigMackCam** · 06-22-2021, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by house

With Shumilova this is basically impossible, the photographs are just as empty and trite however you choose to display them.

Only if the viewer finds them empty and trite. You clearly do (which is fine), but I - and many, many others, it would seem - don't. As with Duchamp's ready-mades, it's a wholly subjective thing as to whether the viewer will appreciate them or not... and there's no accounting for individual tastes. What's amazing to one may be mundane to another. Beauty's in the eye of the beholder, right?

I do, however, agree that some of the more creative, high-quality real-estate photography can look great too, and provide much more than the dull, lacklustre records of property often found in realtors' portfolios. Well curated and presented, I'd be happy to view an exhibition of such photos... though somewhat less happy to select properties for viewing based on them, as they're rather dishonest representations of what's on offer. I remember when I bought my current home - purely from photos, because of the geographical distance, although my parents viewed it on my behalf - I was surprised (and slightly disappointed) that the living room wasn't quite so cavernous as the photos suggested. That must have been an incredibly wide-angle lens they used

Lord Lucan · 06-22-2021, 05:06 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by house

A curation and display of local real estate photographs would probably leave a lasting impression. It will speak volumes about the values and dreams of people

I agree, although the selection would need to be very particular. Many great photos have emerged from work-a-day commissions. such as some of the portraits by August Sander (examples below). I find it patronising however when artists say they want to make a "statement" (their word usually) to me, and/or present me with some artefact like a dirty dinner plate, that is supposed to make me see something that they assume I am incapable of seeing without their help.

Dennis Forster · 06-22-2021, 05:56 AM

More technology provides more opportunities to be creative. It is up to the photographer to master the technology/ies that he or she wants to use in the creative process.

There could be a risk of overwhelming the artist with incomprehensible technology, but the artist has to learn to choose his/her tools and medium. Just as not every sculptor has the equipment, know-how or even desire to create bronze castings, not every photographer has to use or master all the available technical tools and equipment.

Seeing what other photographers are able to create using technology can be inspiring, but does not necessarily mean that I will invest in the technology and skills to try and do similar work. eg there is some amazing astrophotography work, but I do not presently have the means or time to invest in the hardware, software and learning to create this type of work.

---------- Post added 06-22-21 at 06:03 AM ----------

Originally posted by jmcsys

Before retirement I was a computer geek developing systems for laboratory data acquisition and for flight simulation. Many of those systems were computer/user interfaces. The key to doing that well was to place myself in the position of the user and anticipate how they would interact if they had a choice. Good interfaces are like musical instruments and make the technology an extension of the user himself. A poor interface is a burden to use and feels like an impediment to accessing the technology. A good interface becomes second nature and requires little thought to use spontaneously and effectively. Bad ones are a nightmare and take time and thought away from effective use. Again, good interfaces make a computer or a fancy camera function like an extension of the user’s own body and mind.

So for me, we are asking the wrong question. It’s not about more tech blocking the creative use of a camera. It is about the controls and interface making all that tech an immediate, intuitive, and effortless extension of the photographer’s artistic mind.

Touche! Well said!

**Serkevan** · 06-22-2021, 06:22 AM - **1 Like**

I, for one, forgo art galleries completely when a visit to the local Ikea (particularly the bathroom furniture section) serves the same purpose.

(I jest, I jest).

**Fdooch** · 06-22-2021, 07:10 AM

It seems to me that for an enthusiast or a professional, technology is just a tool. But now, when you can take pictures even when weighing iron, a lot of outright shit prevails. The era of victorious intermediaries. They don't need to learn to think, to analyze. It's long, hard, and boring. The excitement of pressing a button overshadows everything else. Yes, even in the forum, most of the work is done in this way. And those who see and understand are most likely silent, because words are worthless. Or they will try to say something streamlined out of politeness. Here, in this sense, technology has already won.

06-21-2021, 10:44 PM - 3 Likes	#83
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,661	Originally posted by Roland Karlsson Art means artifact, something man made. And often you mean something that is made solely for its own sake, that have no other purpose. Its a painting or a statue or something that is only meant for looking at. Hopefully, the artifact is the result of a creative process. But, there is no limit on how feeble this process has been. With respect, Roland, I'd challenge at least some of this. Specifically, art does not mean artefact. An artefact is indeed a man-made object - perhaps an item of utility such as a brick, tool, cup, piece of clothing; or, equally, an objet d'art such as a painting, sculpture or decorative item, for example. Art, on the other hand, is the expression of creative imagination and/or interpretation, intended to elicit feeling and emotion, or to challenge us in some way. That expression may take the form of a tangible, enduring artefact - a physical object such as a painting, sculpture, photograph etc. - or it may be intangible, abstract and/or ephemeral in nature, e.g. dance, theatre or musical performance. [These are my own definitions, but I believe they'll broadly tally with respected sources such as the OED, Merriam-Webster etc.] Originally posted by Roland Karlsson Marcel Duchamp signed an urinoar with R. Mutt and called it art. And then it WAS art. The signing made it useless as an urinoar, and then it existed for its own purpose, only to look at. What Duchamp made was a statement. Look I can make anything into art. This is a perfect example. A urinal is an artefact - a man-made object borne of utility. Duchamp's "Fountain" is art... He imagined and subsequently created the concept of modifying, re-purposing and representing a ready-made artefact as an artistic work - cocking a snook at the establishment, challenging the very notion and limits of what constitutes art and eliciting emotions (among them, anger or outrage) therein. Had I been alive at the time, I'd probably have been as resistant to his concept as the traditionalists... but there's no doubting that creativity was involved (if not, one might reasonably argue, skill). Art and creativity are inextricably linked, the former being a product of the latter. Artefact and creativity, not necessarily so... My apologies to the OP for venturing rather off-topic, here Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-22-2021 at 02:17 AM.

06-22-2021, 02:59 AM	#85
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	Originally posted by Roland Karlsson What Duchamp made was a statement. Look I can make anything into art. This is a common interpretation. But his readymades are amazing as things in a gallery. The objects really are transformed when our relation to them and their display change. The urinal is an amazing thing and so is the bottle rack. You can't really appreciate that when using it as intented. Flipped over and on display it is quite the thing. He made great choices as to what readymades to choose and how to present them. https://flic.kr/p/bbCw Originally posted by clackers Or you can spend the evening with @house. He prefers to look at framed advertisements for rental apartments, so have fun! Perfect post in relation to the separate Duchamp discussion. What I proposed for your real estate photos would work much in the way Duchamps readymades do. A curation and display of local real estate photographs would probably leave a lasting impression. It will speak volumes about the values and dreams of people in that locale at this point in time. The framing and display will change how they are read and make new unintended readings possible. With Shumilova this is basically impossible, the photographs are just as empty and trite however you choose to display them. Last edited by house; 06-22-2021 at 03:04 AM.

06-22-2021, 03:44 AM	#86
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,661	Originally posted by house With Shumilova this is basically impossible, the photographs are just as empty and trite however you choose to display them. Only if the viewer finds them empty and trite. You clearly do (which is fine), but I - and many, many others, it would seem - don't. As with Duchamp's ready-mades, it's a wholly subjective thing as to whether the viewer will appreciate them or not... and there's no accounting for individual tastes. What's amazing to one may be mundane to another. Beauty's in the eye of the beholder, right? I do, however, agree that some of the more creative, high-quality real-estate photography can look great too, and provide much more than the dull, lacklustre records of property often found in realtors' portfolios. Well curated and presented, I'd be happy to view an exhibition of such photos... though somewhat less happy to select properties for viewing based on them, as they're rather dishonest representations of what's on offer. I remember when I bought my current home - purely from photos, because of the geographical distance, although my parents viewed it on my behalf - I was surprised (and slightly disappointed) that the living room wasn't quite so cavernous as the photos suggested. That must have been an incredibly wide-angle lens they used Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-22-2021 at 04:57 AM.

06-22-2021, 05:06 AM - 2 Likes	#87
Lord Lucan Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: South Wales Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,960	Originally posted by house A curation and display of local real estate photographs would probably leave a lasting impression. It will speak volumes about the values and dreams of people I agree, although the selection would need to be very particular. Many great photos have emerged from work-a-day commissions. such as some of the portraits by August Sander (examples below). I find it patronising however when artists say they want to make a "statement" (their word usually) to me, and/or present me with some artefact like a dirty dinner plate, that is supposed to make me see something that they assume I am incapable of seeing without their help. Last edited by Lord Lucan; 06-24-2021 at 11:36 AM. Reason: Removed "Stop stealing bandwidth" graphic

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Does creativity go down as format size goes up?	barondla	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	86	07-04-2021 04:09 AM
Nature Bronze Frog-How much PP is too much?	Rocketvapor	Photo Critique	10	05-18-2021 11:14 AM
Nature Another person with too much money and too much time	Murra54	Post Your Photos!	10	02-15-2016 09:14 PM
When is too much, too much?	lbenac	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	15	05-03-2009 04:49 PM
New Technology meets old Technology. Pentax K10D / Ford Model A	ebooks4pentax	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	01-22-2008 06:45 PM

06-21-2021, 01:02 PM - 3 Likes	#76
RICHARD L. Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: Quebec City, Quebec Posts: 6,573	Modern cameras integrate 100 years of photographic technique and knowledge and permit a novice to take perfectly exposed images. "Art" depends on the content of the images, though. Regards

06-21-2021, 01:47 PM	#77
HippyHippo Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Derby Posts: 98	Yes, it can, but humans will always seek to overcome it. Generally speaking, technology creates new possibilities as a catalyst for creativity. A good example is photoshop: we might not always like the outputs from it, but it allows us to subvert norms and experiment in ways previously not possible. On this basis technology has to be a good thing for creativity. However more recent technological advances such as AI can have the opposite effect by normalising and standardising image aesthetics, composition and other aspects. The chance of ‘happy accidents’ reduces as the ‘best’ camera settings and presets are chosen automatically. Social media tools such as Instagram have been shown to stifle creativity as the desire to get ‘the look’ or ‘the location’ becomes formulaic. Inevitably work then starts to all look the same (look at car design over the past 70 years as a parallel. Imaginative fins and chrome on a ‘59 Chevy gave way to the similar-looking ‘jellymoulds’ of today as wind tunnels and computers optimise designs for efficiency). But humans will always seek to subvert. The thing I’m fascinated in is how humans will increasingly look to oppose the algorithms and AI (for it is inevitable that we will try) for our own creative, political and social reasons. Bring it on, I say! We can’t let the computers win!

06-21-2021, 02:24 PM	#78
Roland Karlsson Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 122	Originally posted by RICHARD L. Modern cameras integrate 100 years of photographic technique and knowledge and permit a novice to take perfectly exposed images. "Art" depends on the content of the images, though. Regards Hmmmm ... art? The original question was about creativity. There is no need for any creativity to create art.

06-21-2021, 02:34 PM	#79
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,661	Originally posted by Roland Karlsson Hmmmm ... art? The original question was about creativity. There is no need for any creativity to create art. But what is art, if not the expression of creative imagination and/or interpretation?

06-21-2021, 03:20 PM	#80
Roland Karlsson Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 122	Originally posted by BigMackCam But what is art, if not the expression of creative imagination and/or interpretation? Art means artifact, something man made. And often you mean something that is made solely for its own sake, that have no other purpose. Its a painting or a statue or something that is only meant for looking at. Hopefully, the artifact is the result of a creative process. But, there is no limit on how feeble this process has been. Marcel Duchamp signed an urinoar with R. Mutt and called it art. And then it WAS art. The signing made it useless as an urinoar, and then it existed for its own purpose, only to look at. What Duchamp made was a statement. Look I can make anything into art. /Roland

06-21-2021, 03:22 PM - 1 Like	#81
jmcsys Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2021 Posts: 43	Before retirement I was a computer geek developing systems for laboratory data acquisition and for flight simulation. Many of those systems were computer/user interfaces. The key to doing that well was to place myself in the position of the user and anticipate how they would interact if they had a choice. Good interfaces are like musical instruments and make the technology an extension of the user himself. A poor interface is a burden to use and feels like an impediment to accessing the technology. A good interface becomes second nature and requires little thought to use spontaneously and effectively. Bad ones are a nightmare and take time and thought away from effective use. Again, good interfaces make a computer or a fancy camera function like an extension of the user’s own body and mind. So for me, we are asking the wrong question. It’s not about more tech blocking the creative use of a camera. It is about the controls and interface making all that tech an immediate, intuitive, and effortless extension of the photographer’s artistic mind.

06-21-2021, 04:22 PM	#82
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by niels hansen I just did a little researh on Shumilova. what I see is absolutely forgettable: sugar sweet and sentimental. Is her exposuremeter broken? The setting is her farm, the subjects are her own children and animals, Niels, she takes pictures of things dear to her, in a postprocessing style inspired by her classical painting background. If you like, let's go to a W. Eugene Smith exhibition instead. Happy now? First drink is on me. Or you can spend the evening with @house. He prefers to look at framed advertisements for rental apartments, so have fun! Last edited by clackers; 06-21-2021 at 04:53 PM.

06-21-2021, 11:25 PM	#84
carlwood Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Blue Mountains, Australia Posts: 121	Originally posted by Kendra59 This is a question I have been pondering on for quite a while. My answer is yes, IF a photographer doesn’t understand the fundamental principles of photography, or how to adjust their cameras to get the results they are looking for. My views were formed over the last decade, when I went from being quite comfortable with using my Nikon DSLR camera and understanding how to get pretty good results, to having several strokes and not being able to engage with photography AT all for almost 5 years, to buying and using a medium format film camera with MF lenses to “relearn the fundamentals again” to where I am today, using a Pentax K-50 DSLR with a mix of AF and MF lenses and having fun again. I have found a level of technology that works for me. It forces me to work on improving my own skills, it gives me more to be proud of when I master something new (or something I used to know, but forgot), and it makes me happy. If I upgrade to a different camera body, it would only be so I could get a full-frame camera, and have my film era MF lenses work as they were designed to. More advanced cameras and lenses does not automatically make a better photographer. Without a better understanding of photography, the creative process, and how to get the most from our equipment, we can only get so far. Back in the 1960s there was a photographer in the UK who used to make great shots with a Kodak Brownie 127. As the Brownie had a fixed shutter speed and iris, he used different speed films to make up for the lack of technology.

06-22-2021, 05:56 AM	#88
Dennis Forster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Cape Town Posts: 244	More technology provides more opportunities to be creative. It is up to the photographer to master the technology/ies that he or she wants to use in the creative process. There could be a risk of overwhelming the artist with incomprehensible technology, but the artist has to learn to choose his/her tools and medium. Just as not every sculptor has the equipment, know-how or even desire to create bronze castings, not every photographer has to use or master all the available technical tools and equipment. Seeing what other photographers are able to create using technology can be inspiring, but does not necessarily mean that I will invest in the technology and skills to try and do similar work. eg there is some amazing astrophotography work, but I do not presently have the means or time to invest in the hardware, software and learning to create this type of work. ---------- Post added 06-22-21 at 06:03 AM ---------- Originally posted by jmcsys Before retirement I was a computer geek developing systems for laboratory data acquisition and for flight simulation. Many of those systems were computer/user interfaces. The key to doing that well was to place myself in the position of the user and anticipate how they would interact if they had a choice. Good interfaces are like musical instruments and make the technology an extension of the user himself. A poor interface is a burden to use and feels like an impediment to accessing the technology. A good interface becomes second nature and requires little thought to use spontaneously and effectively. Bad ones are a nightmare and take time and thought away from effective use. Again, good interfaces make a computer or a fancy camera function like an extension of the user’s own body and mind. So for me, we are asking the wrong question. It’s not about more tech blocking the creative use of a camera. It is about the controls and interface making all that tech an immediate, intuitive, and effortless extension of the photographer’s artistic mind. Touche! Well said!

06-22-2021, 06:22 AM - 1 Like	#89
Serkevan Site Supporter Join Date: May 2019 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,976	I, for one, forgo art galleries completely when a visit to the local Ikea (particularly the bathroom furniture section) serves the same purpose. (I jest, I jest).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-22-2021, 07:10 AM	#90
Fdooch Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2019 Location: Moscow Photos: Albums Posts: 760	It seems to me that for an enthusiast or a professional, technology is just a tool. But now, when you can take pictures even when weighing iron, a lot of outright shit prevails. The era of victorious intermediaries. They don't need to learn to think, to analyze. It's long, hard, and boring. The excitement of pressing a button overshadows everything else. Yes, even in the forum, most of the work is done in this way. And those who see and understand are most likely silent, because words are worthless. Or they will try to say something streamlined out of politeness. Here, in this sense, technology has already won.