| Troll? - 05.07.03 |
| submitter: | Rotten Scalyfish |
| location: | Bellingham, WA |
| At first I thought it was a troll living under the stairs. The composition was nice so I took the picture without further inspection. Then I got closer...and found...oh yes! (See "Nickle Arcade") |
| category: | Seen Worse |
| comments: | 29 |
|
|
| wim commented on 08.04.08 | | so just bring up the discussion once again |
|
|
| wim commented on 08.03.08 | | reading again what we platformed 5 years ago, I found it a good idea to put this picture back to today.I changed my mind after 05.12.03 for the simple reason taht I just submitted the same mattress twice, but from a completely different angle, with completely different aspects of urban trash and environment; however, adam and noonan are the filters of visible submissions, so it stays up to them. With a bit of luck my submissions will have numbers in the 19840 and something, wich seems gto be very far away from troll? But who cares? What matters is the great feeling of urban expression and the almost irrealistic situation where probably none of us ever realised at the beginning how far this would take us away from real life, at the same time entering a circle of real life with people we know in pairs or a few more. This discussion was held before a lot of new submitters entered the playground, so it makes sense to reattract it; robert kershaw being a writer could perhaps add his opinion, as could all the other 400 or more. If we are addicts, the next question is "how to stop", and my answer would be "I hope it does not stop". I got more happiness in sharing mattresses and talking about it, and getting gifts now and then or even more, than I got out of normal happiness, if you catch my drift. So long for to day, I 'll have a late shower and an early painting |
|
|
| wim commented on 05.12.03 | | I prefer 1 submission per mattress, because one does not get often the chance of a second shot, however, sometimes a different angle can tell a different story, and if I get the time to take more shots, I prefer to select the best one (in my eyes only) |
|
|
| Salinger commented on 05.12.03 | | Speaking as a British mattress hunter who takes several photographs of each mattress and like my fellow foreign hunters agonises over which to submit, I'm with Rebecca, Dan, tikifish and the early Kevin37uk on this one. That said, questions have been raised that still need answering. First, ought we to be able to submit two (or perhaps more) photographs of the same mattress in one submission? This is an idea with which I am more than amenable. And, either as a subset to this or as second question, ought we to be able to submit photographs of mattresses previously submitted once they or their surroundings have changed? Once again, I am amenable to this but would suggest that such photographs be tagged to the previous submissions as a second photograph, which, I need not point out, keeps pure the ideal of ‘one mattress one submission’. |
|
|
| Rebecca commented on 05.12.03 | | I thought the British were known for being tolerant of eccentrics. Although at times I only take one, when I take multiple shots I usually find that thay improve as I warm up to my subject, so that the last one is the best. |
|
|
| Kevin37uk commented on 05.11.03 | | You all have a different approach to me I almost always only take one shot. Not that it's like I'm some mattress photography guru. It's more the odd looks people give you for taking a picture in the street, yet alone a pic of a mattress. If I take a pic of a person passers by think OK, that's a little odd, but if you take one of a mattress, they give you a look like you are as mad as a bag of cats! So compound that with taking several shots, they'd probably call for a doctor. |
|
|
| DVD Dan commented on 05.11.03 | | I also have a hard time picking which shot to submit sometimes.
As for a progression of mat pics I always thought it would be interesting to watch the devolution of a mat. Kind of like www.thespark.com/science/stinkymeat/ |
|
|
| Rebecca commented on 05.11.03 | | I have had the same dilemma, exactly. I think it would be fitting to have a way to show the progression of decline when we are able to follow it. |
|
|
| tikifish commented on 05.11.03 | | Lately I have been ponderin gthe question of multiple matts as wel, because evey day I walk by the 'Art Installation' mattress I took a shot of on November - except now it has moved across the street and sat under a pile of snow all winter. NOt only has the location changed, but the appearance of the mattress has changed drastically as well (and not for the better as you might guess). SO, could it be re-submitted? It ouwls certainly tell the story. And 6 months have elapsed. On the other hand, there's something I like about the purity of the one photo rule. Since I ususally take several shots of each mattress I find, often I find myself agonizing over which one to submit. Which is kind of fun, in an artistically masochistic way. |
|
|
| Kevin37uk commented on 05.10.03 | | There is a simple solution. Well when I say simple it may not be simple to implement but it is simple to suggest. The submission form needs the ability to submit more than one picture. Problem solved. |
|
|
| DVD Dan commented on 05.10.03 | | Okay Rotten, apparently I rubbed myself the wrong way (no jokes please) I'll have to admit that if I'd read a bit closer or at all (can't remember which) I wouldn't have thought something was rotten in Bellingham. Still feel the same about multiples though. |
|
|
| Rebecca commented on 05.10.03 | | I just want to say that I disagree with the use of inserts, as I feel it robs the larger photo of any compositional integrity it may have had, and renders the smaller (insert) too minute to fully appreciate anyhow. Now, please, I don't need to hear impassioned rebuttals from a bunch of hot-headed inserters! If this is you, okay, do your thing, it's okay with me if there's more than one thing going on. That applies to the issue behind the bulk of this discussion, as well. |
|
|
| Adam commented on 05.10.03 | Wow! What a great discussion. I feel compelled to give my 2 cents. To be fair… I think I was the first to submit 2 pictures of the same mattress (see Spine Folder 5000 and Spine Folder closeup). With that example made, Noonan and I both think that in some cases 2 (and sometimes more) pictures are warranted to express the true 'Art' of the streetmattress (especially when the mattress has a pacman print on it). Keep in mind that if you do submit the same mattress twice, there should be a reason (closeup of pacman print = good reason).
As far as the contest aspect goes, to us quality is far better than quantity. With that said, maybe in the future we could have a section where a point value is awarded to the mattressese via their categorization. That way submitters would be recognized for both quantity and quality. (ie. mattress de milo = 10 pts, dumpster divers = 3 pts etc.....
Keep up the awesome work everyone!! -Adam |
|
|
| Rotten Scalyfish commented on 05.09.03 | | For those concerned with numbers, I have now submitted a total of three pictures under another email. They will appear with my name on them but will not exist in my showcase. This will in effect negate the three times I have made multiple submissions ('troll?', 'timid liberation', and 'feng shui'). The end result is that I will have one submission for every mattress, (etc) I have photographed. Since I now believe that this was the issue at the very heart of the dispute, I hope the situation will be cleared up. As for insets, I have considered using them, but chose not to, feeling that they sacrifice the picture as a whole but primarily because I felt there was no harm in providing two full sized pictures. I see that this has bothered some people on account of it violates some 'spirit'(in effect 'competition') of streetmattress.com. To voice my personal opinion, I think it would be fantastic to see more storytelling through these pictures. I would personally never submit more than two pictures of any one mattress, as that would take away from the viewability of other's work. Addressing Kevin37uk, I don't think it would be silly at all to provide multiple pictures if you deemed it told a better story (at least not any sillier than this whole business is to begin with) and to me it would be perfectly in step with the spirit of things. Evidently, however, the spirit as I see it is different from how the majority sees it. Such is life. The throng has spoken: "One mattress, one submission." Simple. |
|
|
| Salinger commented on 05.09.03 | | I hear what you're saying and it is a most salient point of view. For the record, I was hugely impressed with your discovery of a pac-man mattress. Hmmmm, perhaps we are too concerned with numbers these days.... I don't know. I hate to disagree with you Rotton Scalyfish but in consideration of the circumstances, having seemingly established the principle that inserts with close-ups are preferable to additional submissions, I do not think your actions need rectifying. |
|
|
| Rotten Scalyfish commented on 05.09.03 | | It is Friday morning here on the west coast of America and I have been greeted with a few more streetmattress opinions. My first comment is a defensive one directed towards DVD Dan. He wrote:"This submission rubbed me wrong because it was submitted as if they were different mats, as opposed to your previous doubles which were obvious." I cannot tell you that you are mistaken for being rubbed the wrong way but I can assure you that in no way did I intend for them to be perceived as two separate matts. If you read the description I think it states clearly that I took one picture then moved closer and saw that the mattress I had just taken a picture of turned out to be one with a pac-man print. I even pointed everyone towards that picture with "(See "Nickle Arcade")". My second statement is that what I did with these two pictures seems to me to be very much in the "streetmattress spirit". Many of life's endeavors, as silly as they may be, are about discovery. This mattress, as I discovered, turned out to be much, much more than I originally thought. It was my intention to share this process of discovery with the rest of you. Clearly this was not received well, which is unfortunate, given that I had stumbled upon a mattress with a pac-man print and that fact has been overlooked entirely. I was not simply taking extra pictures for the thrill of it, I was doing so to tell a story. I see my story was targeted to the wrong audience. My third statement is directed towards the 'contest' factor. I am not as concerned with numbers as many others seem to be. I apologize for my carelessness in this issue. To rectify my actions, I will submit three pictures with my name but with a different email address. In this way, It will still appear to be mine, but will not show up in the 'showcase' as mine. The first of these three pictures is 'forestation' which is on the main page but not in my showcase. I will do this with my next two pictures as well, thus setting my number of submissions back to where it 'should' be. Finally, I assure everyone that no offense has been taken and I hope none has been delivered. |
|
|
| Salinger commented on 05.09.03 | | Rotton Scalyfish is quite right about other people's contraventions, particularly of rule number one. I have submitted several photographs of bed bases without their matts. However, it took some time and a precedent before I was willing to do so - at which point I was content that the photographs were within the spirit of the streetmattress community. (ref: DVD Dan who makes an excellent summary of this tricky situation). As regards the question of how one can police potential violations of un-written rules, the answer is clear. It is policed like this. More importantly, Rotton Scalyfish then asked 'What harm is done by submitting multiple views of the same mattress provided it is not done carelessly and without good reason?' An excellent point. It is true that no 'harm' is done although I would question whether there good reason when inserts are possible? Second to this is the reliability of the showcase - of which I am sure we are all very proud. Who would value Rebecca or Pablo's magnificent contributions of 160+ if they consisted of photographs of the same mattress? Reductio ad absurdum yes - but it makes a point. |
|
|
| Kevin37uk commented on 05.09.03 | | Wow did that spark off a serious exchange or what! The point I meant was that it would get silly if I took multiple photos of every mattress because I deemed it told a better story. Surely one is enough to docment its demise to street dwelling. Perhaps cheating is an inaccurate word but I think multiple submissions kind of goes against the spirit of things. |
|
|
| DVD Dan commented on 05.09.03 | | Wait a minute! You folks mean to say that this isn't a contest? Boy do I feel stupid - guess I shouldn't have quit my job so I could focus on mattress hunting. I'll just have to win the One billion dollars Pepsi is giving away.
Seriously, I feel that any particular mat should be submitted once. If multiple images tell a better story then make a composite as wim rutten has, as well as myself.
This submission rubbed me wrong because it was submitted as if they were different mats, as opposed to your previous doubles which were obvious. I think a good rule to breaking the rules would be: Does this picture add to the SM community and be in it's spirt. Example: Rotten Scalyfish's blossoming2 not only does it break all the rules, it doesn't even have any "street crap". But it is in the spirit of SM so it belongs. |
|
|
| Rotten Scalyfish commented on 05.09.03 | | Am I to understand that this is nothing more than a contest of who submits the most pictures and what picture advances farthest in the comments standings?? I am not trying to be argumentative, I am simply trying to understand. Since it appears to me now that this is a contest about numbers I will stop 'cheating'. To avoid further aggravation to anyone, I will avoid submitting multiple pictures. If anyone has issues with the fact that I have done so three times in the past, ask for "troll?", "Feng shui" and "timid liberation" to be removed. This is all rather silly, agreed? Pictures of rubbish...remember? To Rebecca: We're good, aren't we? |
|
|
| Rebecca commented on 05.09.03 | | I have to say I'm impressed with how eloquent we all are. Maybe I'll launch a study on the correlations between mattress photography and literacy. I have already done a bit of research on the streetmattress submitter demographic - these lengthy essays are delightfully revealing. Write more, write more! |
|
|
| wim commented on 05.08.03 | | if we continue to argue about rules we are advancing troll in comments. From an anarchistic point of vue, if we feel the urge to submit to rules, we should accept that we are governed by those who finally put the pictures in the picture (noonan, kim.deal)
As for me I don't mind several shots of the same mattress, but I like to give more explanation by smaller additional pictures. The kick of finding a mattress is bigger if I insert only one picture per matress.Why do people feel the urge to organise ? If voting is allowed (in Belgium it is not allowed, we have no choice, we have to vote), I share Salingers point of view. |
|
|
| Rotten Scalyfish commented on 05.08.03 | | Since we are discussing rules, it seems appropriate to point out that the first rule (and only rule concerning content) on the submission page is "Must be a Mattress". Yet many are guilty of violating this very simple rule. What is the purpose of such violation? Artistic liberty? Blatant rebellion? Perhaps just plain fun and silliness? There is even a category for these mattress-less, rule #1-violating pictures. If violating written rules is permissible and seemingly welcomed, how can one determine and police what may or may not be a violation or non-violation of an un-written rule? What harm is done by submitting multiple views of the same mattress provided it is not done carelessly and without good reason? Let's not forget that we are all wandering around taking pictures of other people's rubbish! Why is such structure necessary? Am I missing something? Help me out. |
|
|
| Salinger commented on 05.08.03 | | Rebecca makes an excellent point although there is only so much time our organisers can devote to regulating our behaviour. Within limits, this site abides by spontaneously ordered rules, which by definition need not have central direction. They come about through experience, discussion (as evident below) and mutual consent.
My view is that each mattress should only be submitted once and if a close-up is necessary or desirable, then a small insert in the original photo is preferable (see wim rutton's "great scotch, no rules" or "have a nice seat" as examples of this).
That said, in the case of Tikifish's "Invasion of the Mattress Snatchers, Part 1 and Part 2", I would not apply this rule due to the truly exceptional circumstances in which the photographs were taken. After all, rules co-exist with exceptions. |
|
|
| Rebecca commented on 05.08.03 | | There are precedents for the Scalyfish photo double-up. I don't think we need to get upset about it, although I understand each point of view. I have always felt that if the people running this whole escapade, to whom we owe all of this delirious grandure, objected to the practice then they wouldn't put the photos up in the first place. |
|
|
| Rotten Scalyfish commented on 05.08.03 | | Cheating? I didn't realize this was a contest in which the concept of 'cheating' would apply. I merely walked over and took a closeup and supplied both pictures to make up for the fact that the pictures are at times too small to see details, such as the pac-man print on the mattress and that there is no option to zoom in on them. If you somehow object to this practice, I apologize and will ask for one of the pictures to be removed. Additionally, I supplied two versions of "Timid Liberation" and "Feng Shui" for the exact same reasons. They should then be removed as well. Feel free to voice your opinions on the subject. |
|
|
| Kevin37uk commented on 05.08.03 | | isn't that cheating, submitting a matt twice? |
|
|
| Rotten Scalyfish commented on 05.08.03 | | Actually, yes, it is..thus "(see "nickle arcade")" |
|
|
| DVD Dan commented on 05.08.03 | | Isn't that the matt in Nickel arcade? |
|
|
|
30033
