Leica are the only cameras that inspire as much genuine art as the beautiful machines are able to create. You won't get real artists so invested in a Canon or (lol) a Sony (shudder). Why is anyone on this board who actually cares about photographer using anything BUT a Leica?
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)11:45:09
the ultimate photography machine
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)11:55:50
>thing with camera ):< >thing, but with xyz brand camera instead :D
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)11:58:16
"art" is money laundering.
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)14:49:53
>>4511440(OP) Imho people who are self conscious about fashion and “signaling” cant create good art - artists have always been unkempt outcasts with low self concern and projected their neurosis onto things outside of themselves - so good photography with fashionable cameras fell off a fucking cliff as soon as those cameras became fashionable and now magnum sucks bigtime.
Leicas were the standard once because everything else was either huge or even more fragile but those days are gone. All the really good photographers are autistic beardos with old plastic blobs and medium/large format film cameras.
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)15:20:53
>>4511471 >artists have always been unkempt outcasts with low self concern and projected their neurosis onto things outside of themselves only if your idea of artists comes from 20th century salon culture. for a great deal longer than the stereotypical starving artist has existed in the zeitgeist, art academies have been formalising the rules of composition and perspective, not just in the Renaissance sense but also in less realistic modes: Church iconography, Ancient Egyptian funerary, royal and religious art (famously unchanged for several *thousand* years), Greek architecture, et cetera. People who are self-conscious about fashion and "signalling" *can* create good art. However, their ideas of good art are much more strict in their adherence to prescribed forms than an outcasts. >All the really good photographers are autistic beardos with old plastic blobs and medium/large format film cameras. That seems unlikely.
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)15:39:47
>>4511477 That’s a lot of words to say "yeah, they can’t, but they form insular circlejerks to pretend they do" >but the ACADEMIES! the EXPERTS! Oh yes the pseudointellectual philosopher-wannabes who can’t even fully divorce themselves from religion and other magical beliers finally discovered the legendary objective rules for making good art lmfao. Neuroaesthetics is a real scientific field and the actual intellectuals working in it have found that the complexity and variability of the human mind makes defining accurate rules for making art an impossible task that necessitates enforcing an entirely made up culture for ultimately personal benefit AKA corrupt bullshit.
It is far more feasible to define bad art and even that lands in “work of no aesthetic value amounting to an in joke for members of a subculture” which is still technically art that can in fact be good. For those people.
Thus we land on the conclusion that these narcissistic social climbers simultaneously produce good art and produce horrible art.
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)15:40:37
>>4511471 >artists have always been unkempt outcasts with low self concern and projected their neurosis onto things outside of themselves Kekw The "starving, tortured artist" is a modern invention from the 19th century, a myth.
For the vast majority of history, artists weren't unkempt outcasts; they were highly disciplined tradespeople, entrepreneurs, and court officials. Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Raphael weren't hiding in dark alleys. They were networking with popes, princes, and the Medici family. They ran massive, highly organized workshops that required intense business insight, project management, and diplomacy. Artists like Diego Velázquez or Peter Paul Rubens were literally court insiders. Rubens was so polished, articulate, and well-traveled that he was knighted and used as a diplomat to broker peace treaties between Spain and England. You don’t get trusted with state secrets if you're a feral outcast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_patronage
The vast majority of artists even today are far from being schizophrenic hobos.
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)15:45:16
>>4511479 The good ones are. You are aware you were told to admire those old farts as a proxy for enforcing the supremacy of the aristocracy and their pet subject, christian mythology?
A history of classical artists: >We are the best. Listen to us. Admire our work. >Yes, they are. Good art involves jesus. Obey the church. The church has the source of all goodness and beauty. t. self declared god ordained king ruling because of and through the church
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)15:48:01
>>4511478 >"yeah, they can’t, but they form insular circlejerks to pretend they do" It would have been convenient for your argument if I had said this, except I never did. You're jousting at windmills here. The academies produced excellent art and excellent artists despite their constraint by their own contrived rules and values. The idea *only* dishevelled eccentrics can create beautiful works of art is baseless and far from reality.
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)15:48:44
>>4511480 >The good ones are. According to whom? Sounds like schizo rambling
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)15:50:30
>>4511480 >ou are aware you were told to admire those old farts as a proxy for enforcing the supremacy of the aristocracy and their pet subject, christian mythology? Your cynicism is myopic. Modern art curators and their shaggy dogs need your wide-eyed admiration as much as the aristocratic old guard.
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)15:55:01
>>4511481 The only thing that can be strictly defined is the stimulus that typically activates the medial prefrontal cortex in a person with no cultural education. But how does this define good art? It only defines the cultural reach of art’s aesthetic sucralescence which is only one dimension of art, and not a necessary one. Art can be purposefully made with low or negative aesthetic “pleasingness”.
I posit these vintage non-schizophrenic rich kids made horribly boring art on the level of taking photos of flowers and their status as masters was contrived for political reasons. As was that of their successors.
In any era the best artists are not the ones you are told to like, but the ones that make you think about things your self defined master doesn’t want you to think about.
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)16:01:07
>>4511483 Modern art curators aren’t playing host to many dejected autists and schizos. Rather, they are categorically rejecting their cultural zeitgeist and leaving them scribbling out furry porn for money, and saving a select few controllable ones for marketing purposes. Also see: the music industry’s sudden unilateral shift from 3+ person bands, which also damaged our culture and made musical groups more able to retain creative control less likely to receive support They won’t accept the strange unless they can tie them up and hose them down first.
Aristocracy is aristocracy. Don’t believe for a second someone like kanye is what I’m talking about. The good art has always first come from poor fucks stealing film and rodinal from their newspaper job and living in a shitty neighborhood in new york.
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)16:02:32
>>4511440(OP) I like using mine a lot, the camera "disappears" as I'm using it and I can rely on muscle memory more-so than any other system I've used
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)18:41:22
>>4511486 your cat photos must be awesome. can we see some?
>>4511534 No offense but leica cameras are “meant” to be honest signals for people who at least try to take photography seriously as an art form, not toys for “picture of thing, higher quality without ai”. These look like the amateurish stuff shut in gearfag hobbyists shoot on d750s and z6iis.
>>4511543 Who is a good example of Leica user who takes it seriously with photos you like?
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)20:47:17
>>4511546 Bot tier reply Observe this https://www.leica-store.com.au/ambassadors Then look at this >>4511534 And consider the differences between you and good photographers and you may very well improve
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)20:51:20
>>4511556 Not him, but there's quite a few snapshits posted on there. Really good ones as well, but also a lot of snapshit tier pictures. It's kinda funny.
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)20:53:45
>>4511556 But none of those are cat shots, nice try
00
Anonymous05/27/26(Wed)20:54:45
>>4511559 Can you show us on the doll where the snapshits are posted?
>>4511953 yes, /r/leica is ran by a maga mod who has banned most relevant Leica users everyone that actually uses leica is over at /r/leicacameras welcome to reddit bb
Trump has done his job. However, his job was never going to be a traditional presidency. I got exactly what I voted for. The world has never had better prospects. >nuuuu but le american empire got heccin disgraced and had to pay extra to fill up dem pickups good
00
Anonymous05/30/26(Sat)15:44:51
>>4511959 No because audiophiles are weirdos but do end up buying the best and/or constant testing, Leicafags pretend their 10k lenses are better than 2k Cosinas or 3k Nikkors when testing has shown otherwise.
00
Anonymous06/01/26(Mon)03:44:37
>>4511484 >In any era the best artists are not the ones you are told to like, but the ones that make you think about things your self defined master doesn’t want you to think about. This really doesn't account for every era where the premier objects of art have been paintings on the tombs of kings, jewellery worn by the nobles, or masks and totems made by priests and witchdoctors. The idea of the eccentric artist is a uniquely modern and European one.
00
Anonymous06/01/26(Mon)14:18:20
>>4512244 >uniquely modern and European Nips were known for having eccentric artists since medieval times, although their patrons were affluent bar and brothel enjoyers, so kind of a merchant nobility.