20 thoughts on “Sunset over The Grove, 10/27”

  1. nice, but that pic makes my eyes hurt.. physically.

    is that a scaled up cellphone pic or something?

  2. no necessarily scaled, but sent from my phone, yes. low light plus crappy phone camera doesn’t make for fine art, but that’s not really the point.

  3. Dear Sean,

    Please buy the Bla contributors decent cameras. No one here would write at a third grade level with terrible spelling and grammatical errors, and then say, “But that’s not really the point”. It’s just too distracting.

    5000!, it’s beautiful sunrise/sunset (is that Downtown or Culver City in the background?), but it could be so much more.

    OK I just saw the caption – it’s sunset.

  4. No one here would write at a third grade level with terrible spelling and grammatical errors, and then say, “But that’s not really the point”. It’s just too distracting.

    Well, I just did, didn’t I? At least, I kind of did, since there aren’t actually any spelling errors in my post or in my comment. If you’re going to such a stickler, Jimbo, at least stickle accurately.

    Anyway, sorry to have caused so much consternation by trying to share something from out in the world without being able to double check the photo quality first. Next time I’ll wait until I get home.

  5. We would certainly appreciate the consideration, 5000, so that we may get on to whingeing about other things.
    In any case, Jim’s argument is apt. Moreover, if one is going to offer the public something of “art,” one should not expect adulation for no more than the effort.
    You suggest that we all not get upset over what you posted; likewise, I suggest you take a lump or two,m grow some thick skin and learn from the mistake.
    There now, the boo-boo’s all better. Get back out there and play.

  6. Pretty sunset or not, any artistic merit is totally negated by the simple fact that the photo is of The Grove, a frigging outdoor mall!

  7. Art?

    Ha. Haha.

    No wonder you guys are always so disappointed.

  8. “Correction: In a review last week we called Alexander Hamilton ‘America’s greatest secretary of state.’ Hamilton was, of course, secretary of the Treasury. We apologise for a stupid blunder.”

    The above retraction can be found in the 8th September 2007 edition (6th Sept. on-line) of The Economist.

    But Spencer, I am sure that even this rudimentary attempt is beyond your comprehension, so let me make it clear for those of arrested development: if The Economist, one of the world’s leading financial periodicals, can be so droll in admitting a gross error, you can at least try not to be an idiot about yours.

  9. Dude, you have so lost me. Are you seriously asking me for a retraction because you didn’t like the photo I posted? Me making an error and you not liking what I did are two different things, ‘Tard. Sorry you’re not digging the post, but, if you’re looking for a mea culpa over a lousy photo, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Not only that, but I plan on posting plenty more crappy camera phone pictures in the future. I’m willing to bet you won’t like those either, and I still won’t care!

  10. I demand a retraction from anyone who took the minute out of their lives to comment on this post.

    Now, 5000!, please GENTLY put down your camera phone before you hurt anyone else.

  11. I like it. It’s an awesome sunset, the photo is well-framed, and the distortion from the low-quality camera makes it look like something out of a post-apocalyptic movie.

    But then, what do I know? I got laid recently.

  12. Didn’t mean to start the complaint extravaganza, I like the pic, but it really does many pain in my eyes to look at, not sure why. :P
    I think the muscles are trying to focus on the picture and failing.

  13. 5000,

    Photojournalism is art. Why is it funny? This site looks very professional to me. People have won Pulitzers for their work in photography. Why would you show a picture of a sunset if you weren’t trying to be artistic? In LA we’ve all seen a sunset. I would assume your picture is trying to show us something other than just “this is what the sun looks like when it is setting.” Now at first the comments where subjective, I thought maybe my crappy screen wasn’t capturing it properly, which is why I didn’t respond. I don’t respond on digital pictures, because I have a crappy monitor, but your “hehehehe” response shows it wasn’t subjective you readily admit you didn’t even try when you put that up there.

    Why would you proudly admit that you don’t care? I can tell you care. Is it about winning online?

    People’s comments about the above picture weren’t personal 5000, it was just about the work.

    When you put work out into the universe it no longer belongs to you. My advice to you is stop defending yourself when it’s your work people have a problem with and just go “oh, those responses didn’t make me feel good inside, next time i’ll do better or at the very least i’ll purposely be bad to make some kind of ironic point.”


  14. 5000,

    Let me clarify my comments. I use to write for Bla, I know that standards are high. The quality of the writing and photography are really strong.

    The only point I was trying to make was that in my opinion, this particular photo did not live up to what you normally produce, and the quality of the picture was distracting from the story you wanted to tell. Just like a poorly written post is distracting from the content.

    I’m much more understanding of a blurry cell phone capture from a moving car if it’s for editorial benefit, but in this particular case (a beautiful smoky sunset) I think a clearer shot would have better told the story.

  15. Lost in all this is the fact that the rooftop of the Grrrrrove parking lot is a fabulous vantage point for some remarkable vistas.

    And all this debate about art and professionalism is fun to read but it’s making a buncha something about nothing. 5000! saw a pretty scene and did the best to capture it with what he had.

    Personally I like the effect of this shot, as if this is a screengrab of the version of the Grove that migght appear in GTA: San Andreas II, except in real life.

  16. Damn…talk about feeding trolls. The article and the pic are what they are. Decent about a moment you noticed and brought to our attention.

    I liked the pic. Its all about being spontaneous and documenting the moment. I toss out notices as a couple of things I use most often are just crappy (cell phone) or outrageously arty (the che-ez) just because they are handy or fun.

  17. Sometimes a photo is just a photo, n’est pas?

    Still, carry on, let your freak flags fly…it’s making me laugh….

  18. You lost me at “dude,” which is not a surprising remark on your behalf. Seeing as your little Web site utilises caps with a larger type and caps AGAIN with some six-point sans serif that even with a back-lit substrate is barely legible, I am surprised that you have a single alley in Frazgo. (Do either of you get paid for all the bandwidth you waste, or do you suckle from some trust-fund teat?)
    Thereafter, your juvenile attempt to show how much Oscar Wilde you have been sucking–do you really think you are being witty with what any crayon-eating cretin could remark, with regards to the “‘tard” bit?–tends to make it obvious that your three-decades-olde arse needs to at least not be stupid.

Comments are closed.