OT? you decide. Annie Lebowitz re-considered
Tony Spadaro
This is an opinion I've held since the 1980s when I feel her wrok went from
being quite good and very creative into what Lewis Lang calls "stupid
celebrity tricks".
While researching another photographer today I took the time to look
through three books of Lebowitz photographs. Yep the stupid celebrity shots
are there, along with her earlier grittier celbrity shots and a whole lot
more I didn't even know existed. One was enviromental portraits of the
atheletes at the 96 Olympics and andothe was of Women - these shots culled
from over the entire course of her career. The third was titles Annie
Lebowitz 1970-1990.
While I will never care for celebrity shots - I have never found them of
interest, and never will - there is definately more to Leibowitz than I was
seeing. I partly blame this on looking only at the selections of her work
that show up in magazine articles about her, but obviously with several
books in the library I could have at least gone to the effort of cracking
one to get a better view of what SHE considers important enough to publish
between hard covers.
Looking at these books it also becomes apparant that the more "SCT" shots
tend to be of the more intelligent celebrities - the ones who actually do
have thoughts beyond "have I got killer abs or what" - who perhaps are a bit
tired of doing the normal People mag shot yet knowing they have to be seen
in new photos become willing "victims" of these SCTs. It's hard to say,
because I didn't read the text, and I've not read the magazine articles
these shots were to accompany, and I don't follow the careers of the people
anyway --- I'm the guy who never knew the names of any of the people in rock
groups unless he actually Knew the people. I know all four Beatles by name,
but only 2 Rolling Stones and just one each of The Who, or The Kinks - two
groups I preferred to the Beatles and the Stones. I have no idea of the
names of Procol Harum - and that is an album I still play. I can't even
pretend to understand why the names would be important to anyone. It's the
music that counts to me.
At any rate this is a public apology to Ms. Leibowitz - I'm sure she
follows this group closely - and a recommendation to others to get down to
the library and find out if you really hate the photographers you hate or
just think you hate them. You might be surprized.
OTHO I also went through the pile of Minor White and Brett Weston books
and still have no reaction other than, Great technique, too bad there isn't
any content. Sausage life!
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Old site with some pictures still up at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast
overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead.
Lewis Lang
>From: "Tony Spadaro" tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com
>Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2001 11:01 PM
>Message-id: <0fwR7.239490$HA6.43...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
Tony:
Seems our thread has more spin offs than "Happy Days" ;-)...
Which shots in particular helped/caused you to change your mind about her work
and what was it about each specific shot that did that? (A long listisn't
necessary, but a few key images that helped you to change your opinion would
do). Do you still feel the same way about her "stupid celebrity tricks" or has
something in/about her shots changed your mind about that too? What do you mean
by the term "sausage life"? and does that go well w/ an ocarina (whatever that
is) ;-)?
Regards from the lens Fonz - "AAAAAAAAA2222222"!,
Lewis
I've set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want
to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience.
Thanks.
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
Tony Spadaro
not at all like Reifenstahl's Olympiad. Leibowitz uses harsher lighting - or
perhaps printing and of course none of thepictures move. One of the first
shots in the Women book is Candace Bergin, with Mortimer Sneard. There is a
"relationship" between her and the puppet that I think would be visible to
anyone who didn't know who her father was - It is NOT a celeb shot in any
way shape manner or form, and whatever magazine picked up the tab got
something I doubt they were looking for. There is also a series of
Showgirls - two pictures each, one in the Vegas costumes they wear at work
and the other in street clothes. You have ot keep going back and forth to
accept that they are the same woman.
Her shot of Cindy Sherman is wither brilliant or mislabled. If Ms. Sherman
is there it is impossible to tell which one she is as she is standing in a
group of identically dressed women who all look like Cindy Sherman -- I
can't tell which one is the real Sherman, or if they are all imposters.
The Cosindas Cover on a national magazine - without mention of Cosindas,
still bothers me. It's sort of like George Carlin's "The 7 words you can't
say on television". Some of us know it's Lenny Bruce's work, and that Carlin
didn't even change the rhythms form Bruce's to his own. Perhaps it's an
"Homage" - but most people are unaware the skit did not originate with
Carlin - a hidden Homage?
Sausage Life is a simple pun - Such is life. I acquired it many years ago
from a German/Scottish girlfriend so it may have started out as a
minpronuncation. She also had a good way of verbally expressing our
perpetual situation:
"If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs - if we had any eggs."
Snipping to prevent "thread spread."
Lewis Lang
The following post is certified low fat and high octane, try some, yum, yum!
:-) :-)
>Subject: Re: OT? you decide. Annie Lebowitz re-considered
>From: "Tony Spadaro" tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com
>Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 7:43 AM
>Message-id: <xUDR7.8319$Pk6.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
>
> The Olympics book is almost completely athelete as idealized body -
>but
>not at all like Reifenstahl's Olympiad. Leibowitz uses harsher lighting
>- or
>perhaps printing and of course none of thepictures move.
I don’t believe I’ve seen the Olympics book, I’ll have to check it out.
One of the first
>shots in the Women book is Candace Bergin, with Mortimer Sneard. There is
>a
>"relationship" between her and the puppet that I think would be visible
>to
>anyone who didn't know who her father was - It is NOT a celeb shot in any
>way shape manner or form, and whatever magazine picked up the tab got
>something I doubt they were looking for.
Actually it almost looks more like a Mary Ellen Mark shot in its PJ (yet
conceptual) styling. This photo is “an old friend of sorts” (I’ve known the
shot for a long time, not Candice Bergen or Charlie McCarthy) in the Masters of
Contemporary Photography book on Mark & Leibovitz and I like it a whole heckuva
lot. Good thinking, good shot. Whether one understands the relationship/who her
dad is or not...
Its a shame there wasn’t a sequel to this shot in which Murphy Brown (played by
Candice Bergen, on tv) gets angry at the doll and shows resentment to her
“little wooden brother” by strangling him/the doll/Charlie McCarthy - talk
about real life and “fantasy” mixing into a conceptual commentary.There was an
episode in fact in which Murphy does end up strangling a “wise ass puppet” but
that’s another story/sitcom... P.S. - that’s one of my favorite shows, very
well written, well acted and great characters, perhaps even too smart/well done
for its genre...
There is also a series of
>Showgirls - two pictures each, one in the Vegas costumes they wear at work
>and the other in street clothes. You have ot keep going back and forth to
>accept that they are the same woman.
Sounds interesting (though I have yet to see it)...
> Her shot of Cindy Sherman is wither brilliant
Is that some hip ‘90’s/’00’s term? By “wither brilliant” do you mean “wickedly
brilliant?
or mislabled.
Mislabeled?, how so? How does the title not match the shot and/or the book
concept?
If Ms. Sherman
>is there it is impossible to tell which one she is as she is standing in
>a
>group of identically dressed women who all look like Cindy Sherman -- I
>can't tell which one is the real Sherman, or if they are all imposters.
Sounds like agreat idea...
> The Cosindas Cover on a national magazine - without mention of Cosindas,
>still bothers me. It's sort of like George Carlin's "The 7 words you can't
>say on television". Some of us know it's Lenny Bruce's work, and that Carlin
>didn't even change the rhythms form Bruce's to his own.
You mean Carlin completely stole, I’m sorry, must be politically correct even
if this is not the 90’s anymore, er, “appropriated,” Lenny’s routine from him?
Didn’t anybody object, if not, did he wait a few years/for the next generation
of audience or so until the old joke became fresh again?
Perhaps it's an
>"Homage" - but most people are unaware the skit did not originate with
>Carlin - a hidden Homage?
>
How does one tell the difference between a “Homage” and “Le Ripoff”?
>Sausage Life is a simple pun - Such is life.
Ah... Hot crossed puns, I had one of those (inmy shot titles) w/ some sour
kraut and some picked cabbaged too... ;-)
I acquired it many years ago
>from a German/Scottish girlfriend so it may have started out as a
>minpronuncation. She also had a good way of verbally expressing our
>perpetual situation:
> "If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs - if we had any eggs."
>
> Snipping to prevent "thread spread."
>
Good job, this thread spread like butter yet is under 50 calories, no mean
feet, which could have been “defeat,” that is, if we had any de...
>
>--
>http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
>The Camera-ist's Manifesto
>a Radical approach to photography.
>Old site with some pictures still up at
>http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
>The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast
>overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead.
Regards and underpriced and unabridged,
Webmarketing
may not like her photography but calling her a hack is certainly way off the
mark.
--
Fred
Maplewood Photography
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0fwR7.239490$HA6.43...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Bruce Murphy
> I never argue with success and Annie Liebowitz is successful. One may or
> may not like her photography but calling her a hack is certainly way off the
> mark.
McDonalds and Microsoft.
yeep.
B>
Mike Lipphardt
Life is good.
Mike
"Bruce Murphy" <pack...@rattus.net> wrote in message
news:m2itbck...@fuscipes.rattus.net...
McEowen
is wonderful. Sure sometimes she produces a dumb portrait (who doesn't) but by
and large we have not seen anything like her ever. She is the best that ever
was (Karsh, et al, included)
I just wish I had the guts, imagination and the credibility to ask people to do
the kinds of things she gets people to agree to
Lewis Lang
A “small large” (in nature/impact on a point of our discussion) correction:
> One of the first
>>shots in the Women book is Candace Bergin, with Mortimer Sneard. There
>is
>>a
>>"relationship" between her and the puppet that I think would be visible
>>to
>>anyone who didn't know who her father was - It is NOT a celeb shot in any
>>way shape manner or form, and whatever magazine picked up the tab got
>>something I doubt they were looking for.
>
>Actually it almost looks more like a Mary Ellen Mark shot in its PJ (yet
>conceptual) styling. This photo is “an old friend of sorts” (I’ve known
>the
>shot for a long time, not Candice Bergen or Charlie McCarthy) in the Masters
>of
>Contemporary Photography book on Mark & Leibovitz and I like it a whole
>heckuva
>lot. Good thinking, good shot. Whether one understands the relationship/who
>her
>dad is or not...
Just as I suspected... Unless the “Women” book also includes photographs of
Mary Ellen Mark, then your mistaken, the shot of Candice Bergen is actually w/
Mortimer Snerd, not Charlie McCarthy as I suggested, and not only that it is a
_Mary Ellen Mark shot_ Whether it is or is not a shot in the “Women” book, it
most definitely is one of the first shots in the “Masters of Contemporary
Photography Mark and Leibovitz” book by Adrianne Marcus and the editors of
Alskog, Inc. (a double spread on pages 4 & 5 of that book) and the caption
reads... :
“Soft sidelight from old windows illuminates
Candice Bergen and her father’s old sidekick,
Mortimer Snerd, in this portrait by Mary Ellen Mark.”
Its funny, your post seems to imply that this “conceptual journalistic”
non-celebrity-type celebrity shot is from Annie Leibovitz, when it was actually
taken by a Leica w/ 35mm Summicron lens wide open I believe by Candice’s friend
Mary Ellen so in essence it is a conceptual PJillistic snapshot whose idea and
posing/implied situation bring it out of and, if I might add, above and beyond
the normal realm of celebrity snapshots. Its impact, though dealing w/ very
theatrical type subjects (both “actors”: Bergen and the dummy, Candice from
movies and later tv and the dummy from tv), the shots are very understated in
their theatricalitiy, the pose is almost neutral and the situation/emotion pose
almost leaning on the sentimental (for the missing dad, Edgar Bergen, the
ventrioloquist). In other word Marks approach is more subdued and less overtly
theatrical as possibly Anni Might have shot it. Though Annie’s environmental
portrait of Bette Middler almost alone on a bar stool in the middle of a bar
reminds me more of Mary Ellen’s work in its understated treatment of the
subject. Annie also did a photo essay?/shoot on Christmas visiting day at
Soledad prison that for the life of me looks more like Mary Ellen’s work in its
PJ treatment of her subject matter, except for one shot of a couple kissing in
the prison yard front of a flying bird of freedom backdrop that almost looks
like its been placed there as a backdrop by Annie because its a conceptual
backdrop that is almost to good to be true in terms of its serendipity.
So there is overlap sometimes in their conceptual PJ approaches (or at least
there used to be at the time these portraits were made in the seventies, now
they seem to have diverged each in their own directions, Annie w/ more of a
classical, perhaps less theatrically conceptual Cosindas? type of portraiture
and Mary Ellen w/ whatever medium and large format endeauvers she’s doing right
now).
You also mentioned in your post a shot that Leibovitz did of Cindy Sherman
appearing amidst a bunch of Cindy Sherman-like mannequins. Mary Ellen has a
similarly surreal, similar concep more PJillistic shot in the M.O.C.P. book I
mentioned above in which a WAC is similarly dressed as the WAC mannequinns
behind her and seems to become a WAC mannequin herself - very surreal... Makes
me wonder if their work (Mark Nad Leibovitz) has had any influence either
overtly/consciously or subtly/subconsciously.
Yet another conceptual Mary Ellen PJ shot is the one in which an Appalachian
husband sitting in a tree unwittingly points his gun at his wifes’ head - sort
of reminds me of a twisted Grant Wood meets David Lynch painting?
At the very least, regardless of who or what has influenced both Mark and
Leibovitz, whether each other (doubtful?) or their just having similar
conceptual outlooks under some circumstances/shoots, these examples show that
Mary Ellen could to surreal conceptual PJ (even if not as elaborately posed as
Annie’s work) photography as well/strikingly in effect as Annies best posed
theatrical/conceptual work and that Annie could (or at least used to do PJ type
work w/ as much sensitivity as Mary Ellen. Both of these photographeers/artists
have great conceptual eyes as well as, pardon the pun, an “eye for the
‘eyeronic’”.
Regards,
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 12:02 PM
>Message-id: <m2itbck...@fuscipes.rattus.net>
Bruce:
Sorry, I don't get the references. Are you saying that Annie has done work for
McDonalds and Microsoft - and if so, does this make her a hack by reason of
clientel, and if so why? Please explain...
Tony Spadaro
up -- I associate M.E.M. with B/W and A.L. with colour so it's the kind of
trap my brain will fall into every time. Right now I'm trying to remember
who it was who did the famous portrait of Churchill from behind - outdoors I
think sitting by a pond. I would have said Karsh but I assume it would have
been in the books I looked at. Perhap it was Halsman (sp?).
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Old site with some pictures still up at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast
overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead.
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20011212124709...@mb-fk.aol.com...
Annika1980
>> I never argue with success and Annie Liebowitz is successful. One may or
>> may not like her photography but calling her a hack is certainly way off
>the
>> mark.
>
>McDonalds and Microsoft.
Bad analogy. Using the tired old McDonalds arguments won't work here.
And why single out Microsoft, the most successful and arguably the "best"
software company ever?
In fact, it could be argued that McDonalds is also the best at what they do
.... provide cheap, fast food.
So by that standard, Annie L. is one of the best of the modern photographers
even though (in your opinion) her pics might not be the best.
-Annika -----> the "real #1"
Bruce Murphy
Alright, since you're so bloody thick I'll spell it out for you.
"Popular" does not automatically equate to "produces quality product".
Got that?
*mutters*
B>
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 10:19 PM
>Message-id: <%JQR7.246713$HA6.45...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
>
> I did look at the Mary Ellen Mark book too so I probably crossed them
>up -- I associate M.E.M. with B/W and A.L. with colour so it's the kind
>of
>trap my brain will fall into every time. Right now I'm trying to remember
>who it was who did the famous portrait of Churchill from behind - outdoors
>I
>think sitting by a pond. I would have said Karsh but I assume it would have
>been in the books I looked at. Perhap it was Halsman (sp?).
I was under the impression it was Eisenstaedt but I could be wrong about the
sourceof the Churchill pond photo. Don't feel too bad, I mostly think of MEM as
a black and white photographer too, though she's done some excellent color work
too.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2001 2:12 AM
>Message-id: <m28zc7r...@fuscipes.rattus.net>
I am _not_ "so bloody thick," I merely did not understand the reference. If you
can't answer w/ grace don't answer at all. Thanks for the rudeness and the
impatience in your explanation.
Have a day.
Bruce Murphy
> I am _not_ "so bloody thick," I merely did not understand the reference. If you
> can't answer w/ grace don't answer at all. Thanks for the rudeness and the
> impatience in your explanation.
Oho! So you're Annika! Well that explains it all then, doesn't it.
Alternatively you've just responded to a reply to someone completely
different by a mistake, and I apologise for the horrible mistake.
Do you take everything people say about Annika personally?
B>
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <m28zc7k...@fuscipes.rattus.net>
Who were you calling "so bloody thick"? You seemed to be saying it to me, not
Annika, at least on the post I received. I just asked you a simple question
about a reference to McDonalds, what you qupote above seems to leave that part
out. And by the way, Annika has been on my kill filter for longer than I've
known you, so you are not only mis-quoting me through omission but you are
accusing me of being someone who doesn't show up in my newsreder unless quoted
by other people such as yourself. Real rational.
>Alternatively you've just responded to a reply to someone completely
>different by a mistake, and I apologise for the horrible mistake.
>
Again, who did you call "so bloody thick"? I t seemed like it was me for daring
to ask you to spell out a McDonald's reference/correction. Perhaps you are in
error here? I think you've got it bass ackwards and responded to an imaginary
reply I did not make. I was not responding to/for Annika but to you. It seems
to me that you are responding to the wrong person if you either think I'm
Annika or think I got insulted because of Annika. My reply wasn't for or even
considering Annika, it was about your impatience in answering a simple
question/reference of ine about McDonalds which seemed to much for you. Have
you either checked your newsreader, your assumptions, or even checked you
medication today or are you just on an off day racking up mistake points like
frequent flyer miles? Now I'm starting to get rude here, so I'll cut this off.
>Do you take everything people say about Annika personally?
>
>B>
Seek professional help.
Bruce Murphy
> Who were you calling "so bloody thick"? You seemed to be saying it to me, not
> Annika, at least on the post I received. I just asked you a simple question
> about a reference to McDonalds, what you qupote above seems to leave that part
> out. And by the way, Annika has been on my kill filter for longer than I've
> known you, so you are not only mis-quoting me through omission but you are
> accusing me of being someone who doesn't show up in my newsreder unless quoted
> by other people such as yourself. Real rational.
I've been posting here longer than Annika has, so I suspect you're a
bit off the mark there. Further, I *didn't* reply to your post, that's
what it means when I don't include any reference to you or include any
of your post.
Are you saying that you took insult at a post which contained *no
references to you of any kind* ???
> >Alternatively you've just responded to a reply to someone completely
> >different by a mistake, and I apologise for the horrible mistake.
> >
> Again, who did you call "so bloody thick"? I t seemed like it was me for daring
> to ask you to spell out a McDonald's reference/correction. Perhaps you are in
Perhaps you should check threading. MY post's references links clearly
point to annika's post. What your newsreaders does with posts pointing to
people in your killfile is up to you to discover.
> error here? I think you've got it bass ackwards and responded to an imaginary
> reply I did not make. I was not responding to/for Annika but to you. It seems
You responded to a post I made in reply to Annika, and said I was
abusing you.
> to me that you are responding to the wrong person if you either think I'm
> Annika or think I got insulted because of Annika. My reply wasn't for or even
> considering Annika, it was about your impatience in answering a simple
> question/reference of ine about McDonalds which seemed to much for you. Have
> you either checked your newsreader, your assumptions, or even checked you
How strange, I could ask you exactly the same thing, but I won't, since
it's perfectly obvious that you've got it wrong.
> medication today or are you just on an off day racking up mistake points like
> frequent flyer miles? Now I'm starting to get rude here, so I'll cut this off.
I replied to a post by annika. If that post contained unquoted material
by you, then this is hardly my fault. If you want me to post you the
full annika article, I will, but it contains not a single reference to you.
No, to hell with it, I'm going to find the post. Not only are there
no references to you in the headers, there are none in the body. Post
follows.
---- quoted post starts here
From: annik...@aol.com (Annika1980)
Subject: Re: OT? you decide. Annie Lebowitz re-considered
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 13 Dec 2001 01:56:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Path: news.uwa.edu.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 24
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
References: <m2itbck...@fuscipes.rattus.net>
Message-ID: <20011212205648...@mb-fi.aol.com>
Xref: news.uwa.edu.au rec.photo.equipment.35mm:616084
Path: news.uwa.edu.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 24
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
References: <m2itbck...@fuscipes.rattus.net>
Message-ID: <20011212205648...@mb-fi.aol.com>
Xref: news.uwa.edu.au rec.photo.equipment.35mm:616084
>From: Bruce Murphy pack...@rattus.net
>> I never argue with success and Annie Liebowitz is successful. One may or
>> may not like her photography but calling her a hack is certainly way off
>the
>> mark.
>
>McDonalds and Microsoft.
Bad analogy. Using the tired old McDonalds arguments won't work here.
And why single out Microsoft, the most successful and arguably the "best"
software company ever?
In fact, it could be argued that McDonalds is also the best at what they do
.... provide cheap, fast food.
So by that standard, Annie L. is one of the best of the modern photographers
even though (in your opinion) her pics might not be the best.
-Annika -----> the "real #1"
---- quoted post ends here
Now, are you going to notice that this is in no way a request for
clarification, but rather a complete failure to understand even simple
concepts by a well-known newsgroup idiot.
How would you expect me to respond?
B>
leicaddict
Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> wrote in message news:<m28zc7k...@fuscipes.rattus.net>...
Annika1980
>> Bad analogy. Using the tired old McDonalds arguments won't work here.
>Alright, since you're so bloody thick I'll spell it out for you.
>"Popular" does not automatically equate to "produces quality product".
>Got that?
As I implied in my earlier post, I've heard that "McDonalds argument" too many
times, especially in the audio NGs.
I may be thick in the head, but you're obviously a bit thin.
Now here is the point that you thin-headed folks always miss when you bring up
that lame argument: Being popular might not always indicate quality, but
neither does it signify a lack of quality.
If Annie L. sells lotsa pics, it only means that lotsa folks like her pics. No
"quality" inferences should be drawn.
Fuji probably sells more film than anyone else in the world. Does that mean
that Fuji film sucks?
Who Rules?
Got that?
Annika1980
>Who were you calling "so bloody thick"?
The person he referenced. If you weren't so bloody thick you'd have seen it.
--------------------------
You seemed to be saying it to me, not
>Annika, at least on the post I received. I just asked you a simple question
>about a reference to McDonalds, what you qupote above seems to leave that
>part
>out. And by the way, Annika has been on my kill filter for longer than I've
>known you, so you are not only mis-quoting me through omission but you are
>accusing me of being someone who doesn't show up in my newsreder unless
>quoted
>by other people such as yourself. Real rational.
Another Killfile.
Another one of life's small victories.
Who Rules?
Heinrich + Desma
Bruce Murphy wrote:
>
> Alright, since you're so bloody thick I'll spell it out for you.
> "Popular" does not automatically equate to "produces quality product".
> Got that?
>
> *mutters*
>
When you say 'quality',
do you mean quality as in how you see it
or quality as the masses see it
or quality as how a committee of photographers with preconceived ideas
see it
or some other definition of 'quality"?
--
Cheers
Heinrich
E-Mail - hein...@our.net.com
Home Page - http://www.our.net.au/~hein_des/index.html
Bruce Murphy
> Bruce Murphy wrote:
> >
> > Alright, since you're so bloody thick I'll spell it out for you.
> > "Popular" does not automatically equate to "produces quality product".
> > Got that?
> >
> > *mutters*
> >
>
> When you say 'quality',
> do you mean quality as in how you see it
> or quality as the masses see it
I think you'll find the phrase "good value" and "large savings"
form the quality function of the masses of consumers. Popularity
is often a function of marketing and advertising. Do you feel
that the intrinsic quality of a product is changed by advertising?
> or quality as how a committee of photographers with preconceived ideas
> see it
> or some other definition of 'quality"?
I am merely pointing out that *if* you blindly accept that "popular
with the masses" is the same as "quality", then you consider Microsoft
software and McDonalds food to be "quality".
It is hoped that people other than the insane or Americans will realise
that some inherent contradiction has arisen, thus suggesting the premise
is false.
B>
Annika1980
>I am merely pointing out that *if* you blindly accept that "popular
>with the masses" is the same as "quality", then you consider Microsoft
>software and McDonalds food to be "quality".
>It is hoped that people other than the insane or Americans will realise
>that some inherent contradiction has arisen, thus suggesting the premise
>is false.
You seem to assume that because something is popular, it lacks real quality.
I'd say that Microsoft makes very good quality software. If you dispute this
then it shouldn't be too hard for you to name a few companies who do it
better. I'll wait.
Bruce Murphy
> >From: Bruce Murphy pack...@rattus.net
>
> >I am merely pointing out that *if* you blindly accept that "popular
> >with the masses" is the same as "quality", then you consider Microsoft
> >software and McDonalds food to be "quality".
>
> >It is hoped that people other than the insane or Americans will realise
> >that some inherent contradiction has arisen, thus suggesting the premise
> >is false.
>
> You seem to assume that because something is popular, it lacks real quality.
What I *specifically* said, was that the implication of "high quality"
following from "popular" was false. This is completely different to
saying "popular is bad". If you can't follow this simple logic then
don't bother replying.
> I'd say that Microsoft makes very good quality software. If you dispute this
> then it shouldn't be too hard for you to name a few companies who do it
> better. I'll wait.
Did you have some particular software in mind? Secretaries prefer
WordPerfect, telecommunications and finance companies prefer VMS.
B>
Annika1980
>> I'd say that Microsoft makes very good quality software. If you dispute
>this
>> then it shouldn't be too hard for you to name a few companies who do it
>> better. I'll wait.
>
>Did you have some particular software in mind? Secretaries prefer
>WordPerfect, telecommunications and finance companies prefer VMS.
They do? Gee, you'd think WP would really out-sell Microsoft Word then, huh?
And what about Excel?
I'm a PC user so I use Windows. There are really no other choices to run all
my apps.
Bruce Murphy
> >From: Bruce Murphy pack...@rattus.net
>
> >> I'd say that Microsoft makes very good quality software. If you dispute
> >this
> >> then it shouldn't be too hard for you to name a few companies who do it
> >> better. I'll wait.
> >
> >Did you have some particular software in mind? Secretaries prefer
> >WordPerfect, telecommunications and finance companies prefer VMS.
>
> They do? Gee, you'd think WP would really out-sell Microsoft Word then, huh?
Only if you think secretaries make software purchasing decisions.
> And what about Excel?
> I'm a PC user so I use Windows. There are really no other choices to run all
> my apps.
So you're too stupid to see alternatives, so therefore what you use
*must* be "very good quality".
Uh-huh.
B>
G. Fenstermacher
> So you're too stupid to see alternatives, so therefore what you use
> *must* be "very good quality".
Not really.
He uses a PC. He has his favourite apps. He's stuck with an OS that runs on
his platform that uses them.
He's stuck with Windows.
Sure, he could change all his apps to things that are similar (better,
worse: not important), but then they wouldn't be what he likes and what he's
using and is used to.
Annika1980
>He uses a PC. He has his favourite apps. He's stuck with an OS that runs on
>his platform that uses them.
>
>He's stuck with Windows.
>
>Sure, he could change all his apps to things that are similar (better,
>worse: not important), but then they wouldn't be what he likes and what he's
>using and is used to.
I wouldn't say I'm "stuck" with Windows.
I don't know any of my apps that would run better under another OS and many of
them probably wouldn't run at all. OK, I take that back .... there were a few
video editing programs I was looking at a few years ago that ran better under
Windows NT. I couldn't justify getting a whole new puter for just one app, so
in that respect I guess I was "stuck" with Windows.
I don't know much about Linux, but it seems to me that most Linux users only
use it because they hate Microsoft. Does it actually do anything "better" than
Windows?
Bruce Murphy
> Your analogy was stupid.
Did it *really* take you a week to think of that response?
B>
G. Fenstermacher
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011219190959...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> Windows NT. I couldn't justify getting a whole new puter for just one app,
so
> in that respect I guess I was "stuck" with Windows.
NT = Windows. :)
Actually, I always loved NT. I think 2000 is a thing of beauty. It merges
most of NT's stability with the up-to-date features of the 9x series.
> I don't know much about Linux, but it seems to me that most Linux users
only
> use it because they hate Microsoft. Does it actually do anything "better"
than
> Windows?
Quite alot, actually. I hold that Windows makes the best desktop OS, but
when it comes to server work, Windows can't even sit in the same league as a
unix.
Don't confuse obnoxious opensource zealots with all linux/unix users.
Bruce Murphy
> "Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011219190959...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> > I don't know much about Linux, but it seems to me that most Linux users
> only
> > use it because they hate Microsoft. Does it actually do anything "better"
> than
> > Windows?
>
> Quite alot, actually. I hold that Windows makes the best desktop OS, but
> when it comes to server work, Windows can't even sit in the same league as a
> unix.
>
> Don't confuse obnoxious opensource zealots with all linux/unix users.
Is there anything in particular we shouldn't confuse obnoxious canon
zealots with? :)
B>
G. Fenstermacher
> Is there anything in particular we shouldn't confuse obnoxious canon
> zealots with? :)
Swedish babes?