46 comments

  1. GalileosUniverse
    07:25 11 Apr 2008
    Interpretations will certainly be as varied as the deoxyribonucleic acid ... but this just me simply FANTASTIC !!!
  2. marko
    08:29 11 Apr 2008
    A bit in yer face..and why all the people in production...maybe a case of too many cooks.
    It seems that the large production team for these tiny shorts in making a political statement about the fashion industry and the waste of material and human resources that it entails. Anyway, fashion can also be a positive creative force.
  3. mopar
    09:06 11 Apr 2008
    Marko, you do like to provoke.
    Before I even comment on this film. I would guess the need for all the credits is that there is no budget in making the film so many people offer there services for a credit.
    I think you know you speak nonsense, setting up to shoot 1min or 1hr requires a minimum production effort, and since when is a long film a good film? If you are concerned about people wasting energy and resources then go and complain to Bernie about F1 racing or something. Your point - and you must know this really, is moot one.
  4. mopar
    09:13 11 Apr 2008
    Disturbing to watch, rendered in an aesthetically and physically graphic manner. What I want to know - was she really being sick, it looks totally real! Nice to get away from the camp art-house short.
  5. marko
    09:36 11 Apr 2008
    It seems that the large production team for these tiny shorts in making a political statement about the fashion industry and the waste of material and human resources that it entails.
  6. mopar
    09:51 11 Apr 2008
    Marko, there are no more resources used on these short films than in still photography. Have you ever seen a "large" production team??. A photographer will fly across the world to take one shot. Everything uses something, have you watched the TV yet? Or I'd argue football is huge waste. Your comments now appear less educated and more bitter and personal. I appeared on TV for 5 seconds recently and I had 7 people round for 5 hours. It's all nonsense and all a waste - or not. But not short films on fashion in particular.
  7. marko
    10:00 11 Apr 2008
    It seems that the large production team for these tiny shorts in making a political statement about the fashion industry and the waste of material and human resources that it entails.
  8. mopar
    10:10 11 Apr 2008
    The human resources invested in your education were worth while?
  9. marko
    10:17 11 Apr 2008
    Marko, there are no more resources used on these short films than in still photography. Have you ever seen a "large" production team??. A photographer will fly across the world to take one shot. Everything uses something, have you watched the TV yet? Or I'd argue football is huge waste. Your comments now appear less educated and more bitter and personal. I appeared on TV for 5 seconds recently and I had 7 people round for 5 hours. It's all nonsense and all a waste - or not. But not short films on fashion in particular.
    Marko, you do like to provoke.
    Before I even comment on this film. I would guess the need for all the credits is that there is no budget in making the film so many people offer there services for a credit.
    The human resources invested in your education were worth while?
    I think you know you speak nonsense, setting up to shoot 1min or 1hr requires a minimum production effort, and since when is a long film a good film? If you are concerned about people wasting energy and resources then go and complain to Bernie about F1 racing or something. Your point - and you must know this really, is moot one.
  10. AlicePrin
    11:55 11 Apr 2008
    How does this film celebrate change or ‘raise questions of prejudice and development in our formative years’? And if so what questions are these? Is there any attempt at their resolution? I believe it is ethically important for an artist to deeply consider why they accept a platform to make a political comment, to interrogate what and how they saying and to recognise how important this purpose is. I strongly suggest a look at George Orwell’s essay ‘Why I Write’ (1946).
    My reading of this piece is gender based. Subject (woman) concealed and alluding to fetishisation and containment via metaphor of ballerina in a jewellery box who spins sweetly on demand (when ever the lid is opened), but of course is never herself in control of the performance. There is an odd androgyny yet sexualisation of this supposed ‘childhood’ figure ( for instance her red nails are suggestive of embellishment and desirability). Is there something in her drink that is related to her self induced vomiting and the extremity of how it looks? If so does she consume the liquid knowingly? Is the vomiting symptomatic of a disorder, or could it be read as defiant and empowering - ie a way of using her own physicality to disrupt the performance. Is it release and cleansing or contamination? My main problem is when the scene switches from white (purity?) to black – hard not to read along the lines of a fallen woman who ate the apple, or in this case drank the milk (?) thereby bringing on her and everyone else’s misery for eternity. Woman simultaneously as perpetrator and victim AGAIN. Kind of boring.
  11. GalileosUniverse
    12:42 11 Apr 2008
    This is what I call totally inspiring and intelligent thinking ! .... glad to be enlightened by someone who does know what she is talking about ..... and far away from useless ' drivelling' by self overrated totally unimportant egos in the matters of ridicule about someone else's opinions and who cannot not let others be in forums full of his own drivelling ! ...LOL!
    Thanks Alice .... you really made my day !
  12. marko
    14:43 11 Apr 2008
    Alice Prim makes some intelligent and interesting observations, but as is the case in the UK, any form intellectual debate is ridiculed; I doubt this would occur in France or Germany. It is no wonder that the UK has not produced any great philosophers or cultural theorist that have a world wide influence. I suppose this is to be expected where the facile, vapid and mediocre is praised and even honoured.
    I have chosen to ignore the personal insults, as I do not want to be drawn into such debates, e.g. ‘Your comments now appear less educated and more bitter and personal’. The person who wrote this assumes that he knows me personally from a few postings.
    It is obvious to me that people who work in the fashion industry try to make 'art' type work, but it always fails due to the fact that the people involved to not do the relevant research, plus they seem to lack insight and perception in relation to their work, and how it relates to wider contemporary political or theoretical debates. I suppose this is why the people who post works on this site do not engage in any of the debates relating to their work, due to the fact that most of it is conceived to look ‘fashionable’ or ‘appealing’ and ‘subversive’. It seems that they follow a particular trope, in that they try to imitate short art type films. I cannot see the reason for using such a high number of people on each production, as it only has the effect of pushing up the production values. I can understand this in a commercial context. I am sure a talented film maker or photographer can produce outstanding work without the aid of a large number of people.
    Anyway, I am not sure what some of these films are meant to be, are they hybrid ‘art’ or just self-promotion for the people involved.
    It seems that there is fare too much pretensions fashion photography in the UK, that trying hard to make some sort of statement.
  13. ChrisB
    16:02 11 Apr 2008
    Do you have a problem with self-promotion?
  14. marko
    17:19 11 Apr 2008
    I though Alice Prin advanced some interesting questions relating to the production by Jez Tozer.
  15. mopar
    21:05 11 Apr 2008
    Indeed Alice did make a valid and articulated response to this film.
    This is not a site for artists but for those working in the fashion industry trying to earn a living in the industry. Yes they flirt with art and equally art flirts with fashion. If you come here and judge the submissions by the standard of fine art then it is a mistake, and the work may well fail, but to deride any work because of the number of people involved in production is rather bizarre. It either stands or does not.
    The notion that the films try and fail to be art or don't try and are brand driven only to be slated for not being more like art is a shame, so those in fashion are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
    It would be good to involve those making the film in discussing the work, but I half expect those producing this work are contributors to this forum already.
  16. mopar
    21:32 11 Apr 2008
    I think ChrisB has also advanced the topic about self promotion. I'd quite like to take up the chap in the photo's preferred thread, but maybe too off base. I think any production price is worth the promotion this film has achieved. I had a look at Jez Tozer's site. Not exactly Hollywood, seems to me a rather unpretentious approach to photography but pulls in some favor's for the films.
  17. jeztozer
    23:25 11 Apr 2008
    Thank you Alice for all your interesting questions and also your recommendation of George Orwell's essay. I look forward to reading it.
    The fact that the film has posed so many unanswered questions means it has achieved what it set out to do. I don't, in any way, think that a piece of this nature and in this context is obligated to "resolve" any questions.
    Politics surely is about debate?
    I too believe "it is ethically important for an artist to deeply consider why they accept a platform to make political comment" and as such did not undertake this project lightly.
    I'm sorry Alice, that you think it is "hard not to read along the lines of a fallen woman who ate the apple, or in this case drank the milk (?)" this wasn't the intention.
    Ultimately however, I didn't make this piece without fully embracing the potential distance between intention and meaning. I'm very glad and humbled that you were engaged enough with the film to post such a well considered forum response.
    Lastly, for those of you who aren't aware - Millie Brown is amongst many other things a well established performance artist. A little insight in to how the project came about may help contextualise the piece - I phoned Millie up and proposed a rough version of the idea and she said: "I can't believe you just said that - I've been wanting to perform as a ballerina in a jewellery box for ages but didn't know how to make it all happen." (Apologies Millie, I have paraphrased) The project grew from there.
    Synchronicity ... luck?
    Thank you Millie.
  18. mopar
    01:24 12 Apr 2008
    maybe jez can answer marko as to why he has been so production heavy to make his point?
  19. AlicePrin
    02:26 12 Apr 2008
    Dear Jez. I guess I’d say that the potential distance between intention and meaning can and should be mitigated by theoretical frameworks. Your project does raise very interesting questions but also necessarily requires consideration of issues around the representation of women of which the passively observed archetype (I suggest you might be attempting to subvert) like the fallen women archetype (I suggest you perpetuate), are stereotypes feminist scholarship has widely analyzed and critiqued. I guess the general point is that in some of the films I’ve felt that deeper consideration of the wider debates and complexities around a given issue would lead to more critically resilient pieces – and yes I still hope they can be as well made as yours is - however many people that takes ☺. Reminds me of a joke about a lightbulb…
  20. GalileosUniverse
    06:05 12 Apr 2008
    I would like to add that ...It is one thing to be civilised and civil towards your fellow man and respect their personal space and another to live in a civilised society and pretend to be part of it ... and formal 'education' is not enough !!! ... there must certainly be an element of inner sophistication to grasp the meaning of being civilised ... being to young or a peasant is never a handicap to understand that ... It is all between the ears !
  21. GalileosUniverse
    08:12 12 Apr 2008
    That's a great one and absolutely ... to the point !
    - How many singers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? :
    1 to screw it in ....... and 17 to be on the guestlist.
  22. unnamedproducer
    13:42 12 Apr 2008
    i have to say I agree with you wholeheartedly on this marko. All these vapid films are enough to stomach without having to read the banal and obsequious commentaries that accompany them. That much of the work here is being championed for its political profundity and artistic merit makes for pretty grim viewing. It belies a particularly modern brand of glib, non-thinking where any differentiation between real intellectual engagement and flippant gesture no longer appears to exist. And what is this incessant, tired rigmarole of words that constantly rears its ugly head in these contexts? – a language totally reduced in meaning by its own overuse – oh sure, everything’s ‘questioning’, ‘challenging’ and ‘subverting’, isn’t it? How about atrophying our brains to mush instead? Can this whole school of piss-politik not find a new lexicon?; it is de-valuing language and making people duller in more ways than one. I see more integrity and cultural pertinence in trash television than I do in the conceit-soaked drivel that has poured out onto this website. Arrogant, perhaps, but if all those ‘academics’ and ‘thinkers’ (read dull-witted, aspirational thirty-something snobs) that this ‘groundbreaking’ website alleges to attract listened up, they might find something more interesting to write about than their wanky mis-quoted Baudrillard rants that nobody cares to read anyway. Wake up people, there is a real world of ideas waiting outside, it’s not too late.
  23. mopar
    15:47 12 Apr 2008
    So why log-on, why read and why comment?
    You certainly use language in a way that aspires to be academic, "find a new lexicon" , "mis-quoted Baudrillard" join Marko in desperately trying to advertise your educated and intellectual superiority.
    "Championed for its political profundity and artistic merit", shit you've lost me 'cause I haven't seen promoted, expected, or viewed this here. "Political fashion" isn't a deep subject its on the surface as fashion by nature is.
    A few are mistaking this for an art-based or philosophy based website when in fact its fashion-based. These films by make-up artists, nail technicians and models etc are not produced with Baudrillard, Barthes or Benjamin in mind. And I don't have time to comment on the films I don't like.
    Fashion is a club, the magazines are produced by fashion for fashion and the advertising makes big money for them. I went to a university that taught me all the image theory I could wish and I enjoyed, but my god were the tutors scared shitless by fashion as it just didn't go deep enough and I am sad to say most students were too. I know of one fellow in my year still taking pictures 10 years on, what a pity.
    I look forward to seeing those I know in the industry produce something out-of the ordinary on this site. No more - no less.
  24. AlicePrin
    19:55 12 Apr 2008
    'dull-witted, aspirational thirty-something snobs'...Wow this is getting fucked up.
    Alice Prin has made a political decision not to participate in this forum anymore.
  25. GalileosUniverse
    22:06 12 Apr 2008
    ''Wake up people, there is a real world of ideas waiting outside, it's not too late.'
    Please be SHOW studio's and its viewers ... the ' real cool ' guest and show us what you can do that is also capable of being able to inspire, but please no philosophical labels attached or any 'food for thought ' because that would be really boring, unless of course you happen to be a producer of fascinating 'pop corn' ... as they say ... the joys of being a 'producer' and totally anonymous seems rather easy and very brave when making such bold statements ! ... totally xuper kool ! ..LOL ! .... and do hurry up ... the world of the worlds has begun .... and do not miss your chance before the Martians take over and no one is left over ... LOL!
    And please do not ever think that by calling people repeatedly a snob .... it doesn't make you a more bigger snob... just think about it for a change ! ...
    Personal insults will not get you anywhere ! .. haven't you ever realised that yet ... still ?
  26. GalileosUniverse
    04:13 13 Apr 2008
    I often wonder why is it that people who consider themselves 'intelligent and educated ', who want, wish, love, desire to impressed others by writing what on the surface seems to be INTELLIGENT THOUGHTS ... always make TOTAL and REAL FOOL of themselves by writing bitter, frustrated totally useless and in essence childish, immature, ridicule thoughts ...
    Why bother to waste their precious time by participating in an X discussion ?
    Are they so frustrated beyond redemption ?.... Are they full of petty jealousy ?... or perhaps in the end they are not as 'educated', well informed and as intelligent as they wish as ' morons' to believe ?
    My grandmother always said to me ... to be educated is one thing ... but to be intelligent and exercise such a 'gift ' and ability with caution that is the tricky part ! ..... and in essence .... an ART !
    The Art of being INTELLIGENT has rather little to do with EDUCATION but more to do with CLEVERNESS ... in the POSITIVE SENSE ... so who is in the end the MORON, I wonder ?
    That would be a nice project .......... WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE ?
    Kids are often more intelligent than grown ups ! .... The problem is the that so called ' grown ups ' are so full of themselves that they act rather ...... STUPID and FOOLISH !
    EDUCATION:
    the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, esp. at a school or university : a new system of public education.
    -the theory and practice of teaching : colleges of education.
    - a body of knowledge acquired while being educated : his education is encyclopedic and eclectic.
    - information about or training in a particular field or subject : health education.
    - a particular stage in the process of being educated : a high-school education
    INTELLIGENCE :
    -the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills : an eminent man of great intelligence | they underestimated her intelligence.
    - a person or being with this ability : extraterrestrial intelligences.
    CLEVERNESS:
    -quick to understand, learn, and devise or apply ideas; intelligent : a clever and studious young woman | how clever of him to think of this!
  27. marko
    13:04 13 Apr 2008
    Basic Terms
    1. You must be 13 years and older to use this site.
    2. You are responsible for any activity that occurs under your screen name.
    3. You are responsible for keeping your password secure.
    4. You must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other SHOWstudio users.
  28. BrookeTaylor
    13:21 13 Apr 2008
    A few things seem worth highlighting in this forum.
    Firstly why are there so few comprehensive profiles attached to the avatars?
    A great deal of time/money and effort goes into maintaining this site and conceiving and implementing the campaigns. It is by no means the norm. Set up pre-Web 2.0 it appears to have avoided the somewhat inevitable ego-maniacal futility of subsequent social networking and portfolio sites. Participants are not inundated with marginal double-click advertising and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary begins with the assumption that surfers are intelligent debate-enthusiasts and purveyors of valid and valuable opinion.
    But any democratic system, upon which the luxury of debate is based, requires identification. Whether it’s your university floor, the corner of Hyde Park or the one in the House of Commons speakers generally identify themselves so you can situate their perspective and incorporate their reasoning in the democratic discussion.
    The sniping that has prospered on various sites like YouTube where commentary quickly descends into racist, sexist or generally misanthropic tirades seems endemic of the hyena approach to commentary (and worthy perhaps of its own full-blown SHOWstudio campaign), a covert anonymous pack mentality that favours vicious attack over considered discourse.
    It seems strangely symbolic that in the forum sprung from Aitor Throup’s film on identity (or misidentity and its lethal consequences) that the very kernel that ultimately defeats the logic of terrorist endeavour should be so clearly highlighted. When we choose to present our voice covertly without the automatic restraint of responsibility our reasoning rapidly degenerates and is simply superceded by a desire to inflict pain or defeat on our adversaries at any cost. There is no voice without body. Even the supposedly omnipotent and omnipresent gods of various religions have nonetheless felt a curious obligation to put forward physical representatives to the world’s parliament of ideas.
    A particularly relevant researcher for what has developed on this site is Stanley Milgram. His two most famous projects were the ‘Six Degrees of Separation’ and ‘Behavioural Study of Obedience’. The first (pre-internet) highlighted the fact that true and complete anonymity is invariably a comfortable illusion and one that can be overturned by the powers that be if they see fit; given the arbitrary nature of extraordinary rendition I’m sure that the CIA would find six degrees of separation from Osama bin Laden more than adequately suspicious proximity to justify extradition. The most disappointingly illustrative chapter of the second project was the one where the test subjects did not themselves administer the lever but the one where they were removed by one; ie they provided the order not the action. 37 out of 40 actor/victims were killed by their ‘anonymous’ captors.
    Anonymity seems to breed or liberate us to inhumanity and vendetta.
    All the contributors to this project can be traced. You can view their profiles their pictures, in some cases their websites and thereby their contact details. You can skype, email or even call Jez Tozer from his website. From our own website you can even get a map to our studio and are physically (if not legally) free to come and graffiti our front door with any manner of articulate critique (If you need some pointers I’m rather fond of ‘pretensious wanker’ or ‘dull-witted, aspirational thirty-something snob’, though I can’t claim the copyright on the latter).
    To be well criticised is a privilege not a disappoinment. Alice Prin’s comment on our film was incisive and extremely accurate and I whole-heartedly agree with her quote and am excited by the prospect of researching the source of that quote. (By the way to respond to that comment it was a question of finance; what I had in my head my collaborator Trevor Forrest wrily informed me would cost in the region of 300,000 pounds. Given that I had roughly 7 pounds 50 in loose change after holding my piggy bank at gunpoint and we had already engaged with both the idea and the project we had to roll with what we could source and ultimately produced something far ‘prettier’ than I would have liked.) But even Alice has provided little or no information about herself, unless of course she’s Kiki de Montparnasse in which case she’s sounding remarkably chipper for someone so long in the grave.
    SHOWstudio is an extremely generous project. You know who Alex Fury is, you know who Penny Martin is, you know who Nick Knight is and you know where to find them, likewise the contributors. Should you not perhaps consider the same courtesy rather than basking in the caustic arrogance that anonymity affords? That way, should you turn out to be Noam Chomsky or Anna Wintour, we can be humbled and marvel at your achievements or in the event you’re running a motel and looking after your dead mother while inviting the drivers of passing forums to shower we can admire your multi-tasking ability and simply be grateful for your charitable and insightful commentary before we turn on the shower-head.
  29. marko
    15:58 13 Apr 2008
    'dull-witted, aspirational thirty-something snobs (wrong age)'
    Marko has made a political decision not to participate in this forum anymore.
  30. Landon
    20:08 14 Apr 2008
    In a way I completely agree and disagree.
    The formula of
    1. do something outrageous, banal, or flippant
    2. claim it's 'a comment on capitalism/globalization/patriarchy/whatever'
    has been done TO DEATH. Some of it strikes me as so routine and soulless (especially work pertaining to gender politics) you could just write a computer program to create it and critique it and be done with the human element altogether. A much more efficient way of achieving 'social justice'. In that respect your criticism nails it.
    (a reason I admire the Chapman Bros. They throw a logic bomb in that whole structure)
    But I completely disagree with your sweeping dismissal of this website. Showstudio is providing the venue for these films, not authoring them. The big idea is to provide the venue for 'political fashion' in the first place. To take fashion-based work and place it in a different context - and see what happens...
    This site is a rare oasis of creativity free from commercial pressures and knee-jerk academic politics. In many ways it's the opposite of what you're saying it is.
  31. KarlFuler
    09:44 15 Apr 2008
    Nonsense! one of the great things about showstudio is that we can air our views honestly in a way we may be scared to in 'real life'. Clearly Showstudio does present some pretentious and poor work and it is a good thing that, maybe for the first time, the authors get some honest feedback.
  32. GalileosUniverse
    11:40 15 Apr 2008
    Man Ray
    1922, Kiki de Montparnasse.( ALICE PRIM)
    It is true that one of the great things about SHOW studio is that viewers can express their 'honest' opinions while hiding behind the veil or curtain of privileged anonymity ... and perhaps among the viewers basking in such a 'glory' we could even have among them éminence grises or real and true eminences such as the Pope ... or even the enigmatic Anne Wintour ... but it would be absolutely false to believe that while using the blessings in disguise of being anonymous that that in itself would automatically constitute a carte blanche to be vile, malicious, insulting and to degenerate into stupidity in order to express all the well hidden feelings of animosity anyone may have against anyone and became vindictive ... and believe me that the human kind is not exactly .... Mother Theresa !
    It is in the end not what you say but how you say it ! ! For example, what is the point of having a discussion with someone in person while spitting all the time on our opponent's face ? Is it really cool and corageous to be vicious and malignant when expressing our differences ? I don't think that someone who has certain level of ' intellectual' capacity validates his/her arguments by punching someone in the dark. If the motivation is honest then show courtesy and respect the same way we expect from others ....
    There are certain unwritten rules to be followed if we want the discussion to become interesting and lively ..... anonymity shouldn't be misused to charge hyena like attacks or to ventilate an state of hidden bitterness with life because of personal or professional failures , should that be the case !
    Yes ! ... I totally agree with Brooke Taylor ! . He made absolutely highly intelligent remarks and the use of common sense worthy of consideration and whether we agree or not with him that is another matter ...and yet that is exactly the shiny beauty of living in a DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY .... and last but not least can anyone mention a website that can equal or surpass SHOW studio ? Mr. Nick Knight, Penny Martin and Alex Fury have always shown courtesy to their viewers and I absolutely believe that they should get the same, because after all we are their guests, but that does not necessarily mean that we should agree on everything about the results of their projects ... and yet that doesn't also mean that we should act like little gods from down below from the centre of the earth !!
    Just use the privilege of anonymity with true intelligence and be cool surely !... but that is always far more difficult to do than most people may ever think !
    No one owns anything to anyone and we should never take anything for granted even if we happen to be the Pope or Anne Wintour !
    PS: I must say I enjoyed the Kiki de Montparnasse reference ... Alice Prim would had certainly appreciated the humour !
  33. mopar
    12:09 15 Apr 2008
    I agree entirely with Brooke on his broader point, but also Karl's paricular point of being able to make feedback that is anonymous. Anna Wintour is only realistically going to comment under a name like "marko" than her own. I suggest the forum is roughly split into 3 groups;
    Those who work in "the industry" but only those who personally know or are the contributors.
    Those who aspire to but will get no closer to "the industry" than this.
    Those who have tried and failed in "the industry" and/or are cynical through their own experience of it.
    I think it is the nature of criticism (though not the definition) to be negative. Though I have allowed myself to be drawn into this debate on this forum, I dislike the faux democratizing that forums promote. I am not interested in viewers comments on BBC Radio 4 news, I want expert analysis by the John Humphreys. In the same way I feel participation in a forum really rather pointless. A good example is the "Death of Photography" thread posted by Nick. I am most interested in his statement and would be interested in those who responded if I thought their comment's any more relevant than those asked of the man walking past my window now. I have much to say on the matter, but enjoy discussing over drink more.
    I guess my point is that the forum on which I am writing is the weakest part of SHOWstudio. Jez Tozer's film stands tall over all mine and others subsequent waffle. I sometimes think SHOWstudio irrelevant and other times I think it is the only relevant venue. I could pick apart the content, but never draw a parallel with any other work or website. I love it and I hate it.
    Sorry if I have gone off thread.
  34. BrookeTaylor
    15:30 15 Apr 2008
    Maybe you're right Karl...Just re-read my rant and 85% of me still agrees but 15% thinks of the grim scene that was my first (non-alcoholic) school disco; 50 odd desperately self-conscious 12 and 13 year olds seated around the school hall, their backs to the wall, paralysed by hormones watching two kids from the karate class perform unspeakably camp kung-fu moves to the rhythms of Wham!. Maybe the dance-floor of an entirely accountable forum devoid of the inebriant of anonymity would look similarly bleak.
    If you look near the end of what I said it wasn't criticism I had a problem with (in fact anyone that has studied creatively will know that your ability to advance exists in almost exact ratio to your ability to digest criticism). My objection was to the often arrogant and vicious approach, sometimes leveled at the contributions but often leveled at fellow posters, which personally I find pointless and detrimental to the coherence of the debate and attribute to the anonymity afforded those commenting.
    Either way, as you can probably gather I find it a fascinating topic, though if I don't get off this thread soon I may end up owing Jez Tozer a ‘rant voucher’ which we he may well redeem one day should I unwisely step on something spinning.
    Thoroughly enjoyed this film by the way.
  35. Landon
    18:50 15 Apr 2008
    There are laypeople, such as myself, who are not in the industry, have never been in the industry and don't have any desire to be in the industry.
  36. mopar
    19:34 15 Apr 2008
    Then I'm encouraged. I have feared that the fashion industry increasingly caters for itself and not for the layman.
  37. GalileosUniverse
    06:15 16 Apr 2008
    Credit : www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/ _/pd--12728064/sp--A/A...
    Mopar you are not only constantly rude, condescending and lack the ability of self soul searching, self criticism but however 'incredible' it may sound your feeling of superiority in the matters of ' fashion and photography' is really hard to understand when as a matter of fact no one in this site really know what you photograph in real life ? Did you really read Brooke's Taylor post ? .... Forgive me the unforgivable sin of being BLUNT .... but how on earth can you write that you agree with Brooke Taylor's post ? ... unless that is if your intelligent ability to communicate is beyond anyone's understanding ( that includes of course the men walking past your precious window through which you see ' your' world ) and only the John Humpreys can read and analyse what you really mean beyond your factual words ....
    Your statement ' I agree entirely with Brooke on his broader point ' not only sounds funnily-ironic but incredible naif if you think you can fool us the totally 'common' and 'uninteresting' viewers, and mind you I don't fit in any of your well 'researched'....' Show studio' viewers categories' simply because I live in a an igloo far way from the hazards of fashion and we are never here well informed for obvious reasons ... living in an igloo is not easy at all, tv doesn't run on batteries unfortunately ! ::) ....
    I do hope that you will one day become a a very successful and self fulfilled FASHION PHOTOGRAPHER .... but believe me don't underestimate people ever ... sometimes you will only be able to pass through that door ... only if the ' butler ' opens it for you ! ....
    This is all written with a good intention and hoping that you will indeed one day will understand Brooke Taylor's post and will then not give a rather childish response ... or to say sorry, because that is not enough and totally pointless if you keep committing the same sin over and over again!
    Have a nice time at Showstudio .... It can be very enlightening ... if only you are prepared to be tolerant and respectful even towards the loo attendant who may unforgivably post here if only because of the 'faux democratizing that forums promote ' which by the way also benefits you... unless you happen to be of aristocratic stock ... then certainly ... that doesn't apply to you !
    It is all about POSITIVE CRITICISM .... always remember that !
    ADIEU
    PS. No I don't think Marko will ever be Anne Wintour ........ I dare to assume that she is to busy having a good time to care about expressing pettiness.... life is to short to be bitter or to look resentfully of others people's work and success..... :):):)
  38. mopar
    07:35 16 Apr 2008
    I think you may need to see someone.
  39. GalileosUniverse
    07:36 16 Apr 2008
    No comment !
  40. mopar
    07:50 16 Apr 2008
    . . . and you have illustrated my point . thankyou
  41. GalileosUniverse
    07:52 16 Apr 2008
    Oh my goodness me ! ... you are really out of control ... how immature you have shown to be in the end ! ... Have a nice day Mopar :):)
  42. mopar
    12:03 16 Apr 2008
    Pot, kettle, black.
  43. mopar
    12:30 16 Apr 2008
    My response to Brooke was a general comment. I simply don't have an argument with you on this. Our disagreement was on the previous thread. A response to your negative comment on the film. I'm sorry if you want to fight for the sake of it.
    My last point was simple; the work on this site is relevant and this forum is not.
    As stated I was "suggesting" the demographic of the forum contributors. A guess. Not stating fact.
    Your post goes against what you preach against the personal and abusive. I understand I've upset you. I too feel it is time for me to retire from this forum. As the need to have the last word is like a drug - and I must kick the habit!
  44. harley
    20:28 16 Apr 2008
    x-mopar,if this forum is the worst part of showstudio then it is up to us to change that? This could be so much better that is a reflection on us the viewers.
    I know so many people who look at showstudio and never use the forum ,can't work out why that is.
    any thoughts...anybody..
  45. GalileosUniverse
    01:10 17 Apr 2008
    I find SHOW studio an excellent site ..... unfortunately it doesn't seem to work because of the constant sabotage created by the constant personal attacks and totally false assumptions ventilated against an X poster that have nothing to do with the theme in question therefore unfortunately deviating totally from the aim which is to have the reaction from SHOW viewers about the subject in question ... I have read many previous posts from the time before I decided to participate .... and I was horrified to read such offensive detrimental remarks involving real vile ridicule about the postings from someone , with the only aim to discredit an opinion by using offensive and patronising remarks whenever possible.
    Respect towards fellow posters is so essential in order to keep some descent discussion ... but that respect is only given by the perpetrators if the person ' abused' keeps his head down and swallow everything vociferated from the instigator of the abusing . Needless to say that in such a forum you need to have the skin of a crocodile and the patience of Mathusalem in order to bring the understanding that the abuser not only expects but demands!
    I dislike intolerance, despotism and tyranny that is my 'weakness' unfortunately ,so indeed I can become intolerant against a better judgement.
    I think that it is wiser to just totally ignore the thread when it becomes something else... and move on :) ... that will be my wisdom to come ....... :)
  46. Nita
    16:06 23 Feb 2013
    你好:我参照你的提示编译了jxta-c和jxtaShell。但是jxtashell运行后总是显示两行提示。 -JXTA>[ENDPOINT]-warning-[TID: 7B0] -Failed to send message [00520C90] uadtpe unreachable address cache[ENDPOINT]-warning-[TID: 7B0] -Failed to send message [00521EA0] uadtpe unreachable address cache jxtashell无法找到相邻的peer,你是否也碰到类似的问题。如何解决请指教。

Comment