 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006Photographer / Artist? You decide.
Two photographers in the exact same field. One I would call a photographer and one I would call an artist. To me the difference is clear although of course completely subjective. I'd be interested in your thoughts as to who you think is the artist of the two. (if at all) Photographer 1: Darren Heath Photographer 2: Mark Sutton > Two photographers in the exact same field. One I would call a > photographer and one I would call an artist. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Photographer 1: Darren Heath > Photographer 2: Mark Sutton Never heard of either.  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Two photographers in the exact same field. One I would call a > photographer and one I would call an artist. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Photographer 1: Darren Heath > Photographer 2: Mark Sutton Heh, given the limited info in your post I think you would be the one that qualified as an artist, a BS artist. :) > Two photographers in the exact same field. One I would call a > photographer and one I would call an artist. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Photographer 1: Darren Heath > Photographer 2: Mark Sutton Franklin, Did you forget a link to their photos or is it purely philosophical? We've had this discussion many times: Photographer vs Artist... It only shows that opinions are varied and conclusions are all over the place ;-) Marcel > Photographer 1: Darren Heath > Photographer 2: Mark Sutton Never heard of 'em. > > Photographer 1: Darren Heath Another pretentious fine arts bullshit artist. > > Photographer 2: Mark Sutton So what? > Two photographers in the exact same field. One I would call a > photographer and one I would call an artist. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Photographer 1: Darren Heath http://www.darrenheath.com/ nice > Photographer 2: Mark Sutton http://jamaal.smugmug.com/ yawn >> Two photographers in the exact same field. One I would call a >> photographer and one I would call an artist. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://www.darrenheath.com/ > nice ok (loads slower than molasses even at 3.0Mbps) but nothing great...better composition, lots of blown highlights, limited DOF that I didn't think worked well, blurry images, etc. Images were quite small, they might be less acceptable if larger??? I thought Bleachers was the most interesting of the bunch. >> Photographer 2: Mark Sutton > http://jamaal.smugmug.com/ > yawn agreed (but it did load before I had two birthdays go by), sharp snapshots >>> Two photographers in the exact same field. One I would call a >>> photographer and one I would call an artist. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > agreed (but it did load before I had two birthdays go by), sharp > snapshots Pretty clear which one regards himself as an artist. I think each of them accomplished his goal, and that each could, with only a little effort, step effectively into the other's domain. Just a matter of choosing your target outcome. I object to Photog 1's Flashing me before I am allowed the pleasure of viewing his work. It didn't load slow, but once you've seen the swinging balls trick once, why repeat it? Photog 2's work is very good of its type. It did seem a little slow to me, but that may be a traffic effect. I'm not really sure what the OP's point was/is; mine is that while there is a distance between "art" and "record" photography, they can come from the same or similar individuals: the gap within the photographer is much smaller than between apprehensions of the viewed objects. SignatureFrank ess "I can't sing, but I know how to, which is quite different." -- Noel Coward "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message > I'm not really sure what the OP's point was/is; mine is that while there > is a distance between "art" and "record" photography, they can come from > the same or similar individuals: the gap within the photographer is much > smaller than between apprehensions of the viewed objects. The difference between a photographer and an artist who uses a camera is the level of pretentiousness. > "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message >> I'm not really sure what the OP's point was/is; mine is that while there [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The difference between a photographer and an artist who uses a camera is > the level of pretentiousness. Couldn't have put it better myself, but it needs quotes around "artist." >> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message >>> I'm not really sure what the OP's point was/is; mine is that while there [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Couldn't have put it better myself, but it needs quotes around "artist." ----------- The opinions expressed here on what art is, what art isn't, what tool is or is not a valid tool in artistic expression, make for interesting reading. Similar ideas were exchanged in a long thread titled "Photographers:Do You Think Outside the Box?" which lasted for days. Basically the argument centered around the use of the word "art" (or it's derivatives) with reference to photography. It seemed was needed was a text reference which resolved the question and I provided (at least one) which appeared to end the long discussion in the other thread. I posted this in the discussion titled "Photographers:Do You Think Outside the Box?". " It appears that the debate here is if photography can be called "art". So far nobody has attempted to find a definition for the word "art" that excludes photography yet the Encyclopedia Britannica article (see below) does include photography in it's definition in a grouping which includes painting, sculpture,..etc.. Another definition points out that the word "art" comes from the Latin "ars" meaning craft or skill. I don't think that this excludes photography from the "art" even though one could argue a case that *some* photographic processes do not fit this definition. One could also ague that there are some paintings and sculpture that do not fit this definition. Can someone please post some reference where photography is *explicitly* excluded from any or all art form definitions?" ----------------------------- art Encyclopedia Britannica Article Page 1 of 1 also called visual art a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination. The term art encompasses diverse media such as painting, sculpture, printmaking, drawing, decorative arts, photography, and installation. The various visual arts exist within a continuum that ranges from purely aesthetic purposes at one end to purely utilitarian. ----------------------------- Don >>> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message >>>> I'm not really sure what the OP's point was/is; mine is that while [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > resolved the question and I provided (at least one) which appeared to end > the long discussion in the other thread. I think that discussion just ran out of gas, as all such discussions eventually do. It's not likely anyone can "provide . . . a text reference which [would resolve] the question." > I posted this in the discussion titled "Photographers:Do You Think > Outside the Box?". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > does include photography in it's definition in a grouping which includes > painting, sculpture,..etc.. There is a category of photography called "fine art" photography. Traditionally this has been done by people named Weston, or imitators of Weston, using 8 x 10 view cameras with lenses stopped down to f/64 to take photographs of voluptuously shaped rocks, peppers, and the least interesting parts of nude women. Approximately 0.003% of the population thinks these are interesting photographs, which is evidently enough to get them accepted as an art form. But they are a long, long way from being art in the same sense that painting or sculpture is art. > Another definition points out that the word "art" comes from the Latin > "ars" meaning craft or skill. I don't think that this excludes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Can someone please post some reference where photography is *explicitly* > excluded from any or all art form definitions?" It's impossible as a practical matter to *exclude* anything at all from being called "art." You might as well ask, "Can someone please post some reference where hamburger flipping is *explicitly* excluded from any or all art form definitions?" I doubt anyone can. So what would you do about hamburger-flipping people who might come along and declare themselves "artists"? Accept that as a valid art form? The salient point is, photography is certainly not an art in the same sense that building up an image or form from nothing and by hand is, e.g. painting, drawing, sculpture, etc. If your position is that photography is at least as much an art as flipping hamburgers, I will grant you that it is. And it is certainly a lot more technical. Your fast loosing anything that could have been remotely considered credibility. Obviously you know little about art-and humanity. Do yourself a favor and push your sorry butt away from the keyboard. > There is a category of photography called "fine art" photography. > Traditionally this has been done by people named Weston, or imitators of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > an art form. But they are a long, long way from being art in the same sense > that painting or sculpture is art. <Snip additional drivel>. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". > Your fast loosing anything that could have been remotely considered > credibility. Obviously you know little about art-and humanity. Obviously you're a) semiliterate ("Your fast loosing anything . . .") and b) in the wrong newsgroup. What you want is the alt.art.and.humanity.bullshit.for.semiliterates newsgroup. > Do > yourself a favor and push your sorry butt away from the keyboard. I am doing *you* the favor of directing you to a more appropriate newsgroup. You are way out of your depth here. >> There is a category of photography called "fine art" photography. >> Traditionally this has been done by people named Weston, or imitators of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> sense >> that painting or sculpture is art. he is a Kill filed Jackass. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". John...I certainly respect your right to your opinion. It would seem however that your view of what photography is very narrow indeed. The assumptions you make here: Fine art photography comprises of landscapes, still lifes and nudes when taken with a particular format camera at a prescribed aperture. Approximately 0.003% of the population thinks these are interesting photographs - I won't bother asking for a citation here as I assume you meant 'my mates and immediate family' when that particular straw poll was taken. None of the members of Group f64 with Names like Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham et al could be considered 'Artist' in the same way that a painter could? What about the works of Mark Rothko - would you even classify him as an artist? Or take for instance Jackson Pollacks 'Blue Poles' which contains his own blood and urine. Of course he created it from nothing and therefore under your definition must be an artist. What about Christo? Is wrapping the Reichstag art? Nothing was sculpted, nothing was painted - is he an artist? I suspect that your idea of an artist probably is even more narrow. Am I right in saying that they kind of artist you like expresses their creativity in a direct realistic manner. An artist who's paintings are true representations of the captured subject. Hyperrealism then would probably be your most favoured. The works of Richard Estes and Denis Peterson? What I don't understand is that it's not the work you so much oppose but the fact that it's called 'art'. Why does it irk you so much when someone calls themselves an artist? I'm genuinly curious though as I said respect your opinion and will happily leave it at that. > John...I certainly respect your right to your opinion. It would seem > however that your view of what photography is very narrow indeed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Fine art photography comprises of landscapes, still lifes and nudes > when taken with a particular format camera at a prescribed aperture. Well, that was tongue in cheek. Sorry if I didn't make it as obvious as I thought I did. > Approximately 0.003% of the population thinks these are interesting > photographs - I won't bother asking for a citation here as I assume you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Weston, Imogen Cunningham et al could be considered 'Artist' in the > same way that a painter could? Not in the same way a painter could, correct. As I said, the term "art" can be (and is) used in so many different ways, to mean so many different things, that for practical purposes any usage at all must be correct in some sense. I have seen, many times, someone call a photograph "art" simply because he thinks it is a beautiful photograph, and being beautiful must be art. My point is that a technically proficient photographic recording of a beautiful subject is no more art than the subject itself is. That's really all I am saying. Most people who believe beautiful photographs are "art" agree that a mere snapshot is not art. But why not? At what point, what degree of consideration, planning, positioning, choice of angle, framing, aperture, etc., does a snapshot become "art"? The snapshooter does all or most of those things, even if he does them very quickly. I have previously used Henri Cartier Bresson as an example of this. How about the work of W. Eugene Smith? Many of Smith's images are so powerful they remain prominent in my memory several decades after I saw them. Like HCB he worked (mostly) with Leicas, and quickly. I believe he did virtually all of his own printing, which was important to the final result being what it is. As far as I know, neither Smith nor HCB regarded their work as "art" -- they thought of themselves as photographers, not "artists." At what point is photography supposed to rise to the level of an art form? Where is the line? > What about the works of Mark Rothko - would you even classify him as an > artist? Or take for instance Jackson Pollacks 'Blue Poles' which > contains his own blood and urine. Of course he created it from nothing > and therefore under your definition must be an artist. Right. I regard Pollack as a screwball and/or poseur, but an artist. I am not using "artist" in any sort of complimentary or favorable sense here, it is important to stress. I remember when Pollack made a painting by laying an enormous canvas on the ground, then driving a Triumph TR-3 through puddles of paint of various colors and over the canvas. He said he chose the TR-3 because of its short turning circle, which he needed to make that kind of a painting. Much art is silly, nonsensical, useless and without value of any kind as far as I'm concerned. That does not prevent it from being art, in the sense that it was *created* (as distinct from *recorded*) by someone whose claimed intention was to produce a work of art. It doesn't have to be something I like, admire, or even see any point to, in order to be art. > What about > Christo? Is wrapping the Reichstag art? Nothing was sculpted, nothing > was painted - is he an artist? As long as someone *creates* some thing that did not exist before, with the intention of making a work of art, as far as I'm concerned that thing is art and the one who made it is an artist. Good, bad or indifferent. I mentioned in the other thread that there are many gray areas. > I suspect that your idea of an artist probably is even more narrow. Am > I right in saying that they kind of artist you like expresses their But it has nothing whatever to do with the "kind of artist [I] like." As I hope I've made clear above, there are artists whose work I have absolutely no use for. > creativity in a direct realistic manner. An artist who's paintings are > true representations of the captured subject. Not necessarily, though I do much prefer representational painting to non-objective painting. But my preferences have nothing to do with whether anything is, or is not, art. > Hyperrealism then would probably be your most favoured. The works of > Richard Estes and Denis Peterson? > > What I don't understand is that it's not the work you so much oppose > but the fact that it's called 'art'. Why does it irk you so much when > someone calls themselves an artist? I would ask instead, Why is it so important for someone who does not actually create anything to call himself an "artist"? I have been an artist, long ago. I have also enjoyed photography for over 50 years, and I know what the difference is. Is it possible for photography to be an art? Sure, in some sense, just not in the same sense as painting or sculpture. As I said, hamburger flipping can be "an art." > I'm genuinly curious though as I said respect your opinion and will > happily leave it at that. I hope I have clarified my position. [ . . . ] >> What about the works of Mark Rothko - would you even classify him as an >> artist? Or take for instance Jackson Pollacks 'Blue Poles' which >> contains his own blood and urine. Of course he created it from nothing >> and therefore under your definition must be an artist. > > Right. I regard Pollack as a screwball and/or poseur, but an artist. I am Correction: That should be Pollock, not Pollack. But I'm sure we're talking about the same guy. ;-) > I hope I have clarified my position. Perfectly: Bollocks! Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> I hope I have clarified my position. > > Perfectly: Bollocks! I always enjoy a good, well-thought-out, carefully reasoned argument laying out each point in an articulate, clear and logical manner. Thank you for giving it your best effort. I hope the immense strain did not cause you any sort of cerebral injury. Plonk. >>> I hope I have clarified my position. >> Perfectly: Bollocks! > > I always enjoy a good, well-thought-out, carefully reasoned argument laying > out each point in an articulate, clear and logical manner. I enjoy frustrating high-falutin celebrities such as yourself, Shakespeare. But thanks to your bombast, you made it far too easy. Ciao, bambino. Signaturejohn mcwilliams As long as someone *creates* some thing that did not exist before, with the intention of making a work of art, as far as I'm concerned that thing is art and the one who made it is an artist. Good, bad or indifferent. Fair enough. So If I may just summarise. If I dip dwarves in paint and shoot them via a trebuchet onto a giant canvas - I'm an artist because the canvas IS the art and I (along with the dwarves) created it from nothing. But If I dip dwarves in paint and shoot them via a trebuchet onto a giant canvas and photograph them sliding down the canvas artwork - I'm merely a technician because although I have obviously still physically created the same piece of art - the presence of the camera turns my art (that has still been created) into something 'less than art' Interesting...because like the photograph the trebuchet in this case is just a tool to record the art work, without it I could not create the artwork. Could I be called an artist in this scenario whilst only presenting the photograph, given that I created the physical art as well? > As long as someone *creates* some thing that did not exist before, with > the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > canvas - I'm an artist because the canvas IS the art and I (along with > the dwarves) created it from nothing. Yes, that seems fair to me, though it may violate some law prohibiting the abuse of dwarves. > But If I dip dwarves in paint and shoot them via a trebuchet onto a > giant canvas and photograph them sliding down the canvas artwork - I'm > merely a technician because although I have obviously still physically > created the same piece of art - the presence of the camera turns my art > (that has still been created) into something 'less than art' In that case I would say you are both an artist (for ballistic painting by dwarf) and a photographer (for recording the event). They are not mutually exclusive in any way that I can see, and you can surely be both. A sculptor can photograph himself sculpting, can't he? That seems to me exactly analogous (if much less spectacular) to the art form that I guess you have just invented. > Interesting...because like the photograph the trebuchet in this case is > just a tool to record the art work, without it I could not create the > artwork. How is the trebuchet "a tool to record the art work"? The trebuchet isn't recording anything. It is the artist's tool in your hypothetical. > Could I be called an artist in this scenario whilst only presenting the > photograph, given that I created the physical art as well? Well, if the photograph showed you performing your painting by dwarf launching, you would be presenting yourself as the artist in the photograph. The photograph itself of course would not be a work of art, any more than any other photo of artwork would itself be art. If you really insisted on being the artist at both ends (so to speak), I think you would have to make a very quick sketch of the event, perhaps a dwarf in mid-trajectory. Or even an oil painting, though obviously that would have to be done later, from memory. Thanks John...I'm really glad we nutted that one out. Bring in the dwarves..... > Thanks John...I'm really glad we nutted that one out. Yes, just goes to show that almost any problem can be solved by a measured and reasonable approach. > Bring in the dwarves..... They're waiting in the wings, though with little apparent enthusiasm. >> Thanks John...I'm really glad we nutted that one out. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They're waiting in the wings, though with little apparent enthusiasm. ---- FWIW -- I agree with some of what you say, I disagree with most of what you say, but, you do have a great sense of humor. Don >>> Thanks John...I'm really glad we nutted that one out. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you say, but, you do have a great sense of humor. > Don Thank you. > As long as someone *creates* some thing that did not exist before, with > the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > canvas - I'm an artist because the canvas IS the art and I (along with > the dwarves) created it from nothing. Well it might not might not be art but it would be great TV. Fox TV will buy it up for sure. Soctt Pretty much of it as you have said & I tend to agree with museums as many have classified photography as art and feature it as a valid media of expression. I less value the general populous pretenses for or against it being classified one way or the other. > ----------- > The opinions expressed here on what art is, what art isn't, what tool is [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Don SignatureThe sometimes insomniac. www.gregblankphoto.com > "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The difference between a photographer and an artist who uses a camera is the > level of pretentiousness. The first one was pretentious but it was also sexy & interesting. The second one, I didn't notice a single captivating composition in the first couple pages. There probably are some good ones in there somewhere but I couldn't be bothered to look. >> Two photographers in the exact same field. One I would call a >> photographer and one I would call an artist. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://www.darrenheath.com/ > nice Nice...what? -Web graphics? Sure...if you have broadband. -But when the web graphics are more impressive than your photos...you lose. :) > > Two photographers in the exact same field. One I would call a > > photographer and one I would call an artist. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://jamaal.smugmug.com/ > yawn >> Photographer 1: Darren Heath > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://jamaal.smugmug.com/ > yawn Neither one is impressive. Darren is certainly much better with using light and shaddow and impressive abstraction through close ups, but did not give me a single wow moment. Mark is plain ordinary. The CeeCee gallery was an opportunity to shine in lighting, but it is boring, boring, boring. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Two photographers in the exact same field. One I would call a > photographer and one I would call an artist. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Photographer 1: Darren Heath > Photographer 2: Mark Sutton Which one is wearing a beret? To be an "artist" you have to wear a beret, and explain that your photograph of that rock expresses your "feelings." These things are very important. > Which one is wearing a beret? To be an "artist" you have to wear a beret, > and explain that your photograph of that rock expresses your "feelings." > These things are very important. I think I see your angle. Putting your work up for critique is a scary thing to do. If your images are all well exposed and technically perfect, even if the subject matter is boring people can at the very least say you are technically good at your craft. I think a lot of photographers fall into that trap, it's a lot harder to have explain your work for people that expect photographs to be a perfect representation of the original subject matter. An artist is willing to expose themselves to the type of slings and arrows that you are quite within your right to throw. To open themselves to criticism and debate. Personally, I'd prefer to look at a out of focus, over exposed image with form and emotion than a beautiful but achingly boring exact representation of something I've seen time and time again. "Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt". William Shakespeare >> Which one is wearing a beret? To be an "artist" you have to wear a >> beret, and explain that your photograph of that rock expresses your [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > William Shakespeare "reSIST the URGE to exPLAIN" -Screenwriter and Oscar nominee in an AOL chatroom > "reSIST the URGE to exPLAIN" > -Screenwriter and Oscar nominee in an AOL chatroom Frank, is this some kind of nettiquette thing I'm missing out on here, because you totally lost me. Especially in the mix of upPPER and LOWER cASe? Please do not resist the urge to explain.... Sideshow Bob: Bart, I must know. How did you untangle my web? Chief Wiggum: Yeah, Bart, pull us in! Bart: Well, I'd hate to tell the number one cop in town how to do his job... Chief Wiggum: No no, please. It's the only way I'll learn >> "reSIST the URGE to exPLAIN" >> -Screenwriter and Oscar nominee in an AOL chatroom [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Please do not resist the urge to explain.... "The advice was offered by an artist to an artist; CAPS are for EMphasis", he said, doing as he did, not as he said. I don't know from "nettiquette thing." What's that? SignatureFrank ess > Sideshow Bob: Bart, I must know. How did you untangle my web? > Chief Wiggum: Yeah, Bart, pull us in! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > his job... > Chief Wiggum: No no, please. It's the only way I'll learn > "The advice was offered by an artist to an artist; CAPS are for > EMphasis", he said, doing as he did, not as he said. I doff my beret to you sir... >> Which one is wearing a beret? To be an "artist" you have to wear a beret, >> and explain that your photograph of that rock expresses your "feelings." >> These things are very important. > > I think I see your angle. Putting your work up for critique is a scary > thing to do. Not at all. Anyone says it's meaningless junk, you just say they have no artistic "sensibilities" and don't understand the depth and cosmic importance of your "personal statement," etc., set your beret at a superior angle, look down your nose at the dullards and go on to a more appreciative audience. They're out there. > If your images are all well exposed and technically > perfect, even if the subject matter is boring people can at the very > least say you are technically good at your craft. I think a lot of > photographers fall into that trap, it's a lot harder to have explain > your work for people that expect photographs to be a perfect > representation of the original subject matter. Silly people. Why should a photograph *look* like anything, as long as it "expresses" your "feelings"? Eh? > An artist is willing to expose themselves to the type of slings and > arrows that you are quite within your right to throw. To open [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with form and emotion than a beautiful but achingly boring exact > representation of something I've seen time and time again. What, those are the choices now? Dang. An "out of focus, over exposed image with form and emotion" you say. I begin to understand why real "artistic" photographers go for the Lomo. > An "out of focus, over exposed image with form and emotion" you say. I begin > to understand why real "artistic" photographers go for the Lomo. Exactly! You're on the road to enlightenment. I give you a chainsaw and with your imagination you look for the tree to be cut for the fire. It's neat, it's literal, it's simplistic, no interpretation needed - it works for you,. You can use the tool all day long and regardless of how good you are, you'll only end up with firewood that anyone could make. But in the hands of an ice sculptor, or a wood sculptor you'd end up with something completely different. The tool does not make creativity, the mind does. Enjoy your life of firewood... :-D >> An "out of focus, over exposed image with form and emotion" you say. I begin >> to understand why real "artistic" photographers go for the Lomo. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The tool does not make creativity, the mind does. Especially if it's mentally ill. > Especially if it's mentally ill. I agree. Rationality is in abundance, we need far less of it. It's so easy to deconstruct much harder to create an original idea. A lot of worlds truly gifted people have been accused of mental illness by people scared of their creativity and radical departure from the norm. After all, what does it matter if a photographer calls him/herself an artist anyway? What impact to the world does it make? What motivates you to be so upset when they call themselves artist. How does it impact you? >> An "out of focus, over exposed image with form and emotion" you say. >> I begin to understand why real "artistic" photographers go for the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Enjoy your life of firewood... :-D Within the same line of thinking, people cover their otherwise naturally beautiful bodies with hideous tattoos in the name of "originality" or "creativity" or in the name of being a "non-conformist..." and in so doing, they often utterly destroy the natural beauty that is human skin. What's funny to me is that in their attempt to be "original..." they become just another minority cliche'. Don't be too quick to label anything presented for its own beauty in a straight-forward fashion as "firewood." SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Don't be too quick to label anything presented for its own beauty in a > straight-forward fashion as "firewood." Wouldn't dream of it. Was just illustrate that a camera is just a tool and the imagination of the photographer/artist is the only limitation. A camera could be used to take very humdrum passport images all day long - not very exciting. But what if you took 40,000 passport pictures representative of all the different cultures of the world and used them to make a gigantic portrait morphing all the faces into one homogenus image of humanity - it would be far more interesting. It's now not just a picture but a statement about something. Now it's not so much about the image, but the thought that it provoke, the image is just the vehicle to commuicate an idea. Maybe you'd go and see this picture in the art gallery and go 'What a load of crap' how does this represent homogenity? But at least it would get you thinking which is one of the great aspects of art. And before you all rag out on the idea, I'm just using it as an illustration as to how perhaps you need to expand your horizons about what is art (and therefore who is an artist) and what is not. >> Don't be too quick to label anything presented for its own beauty in >> a straight-forward fashion as "firewood." [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > illustration as to how perhaps you need to expand your horizons about > what is art (and therefore who is an artist) and what is not. I don't have any problem with your illustration at all. In fact...as the whole discussion relates to my own photography, I will be the first to admit that I don't have a naturally unique eye for presentation...unusual perspective, etc. I am a fairly creative person in other ways, but that doesn't always make it into my photographs. For me though, I am inspired by natural beauty as it comes into my everyday eyes, and so I tend to want to capture that. I don't feel comnpelled to grab it in some sort of artsy way, rather simnply capture what I find so breathtaking...as it already is presented in nature to me. I realize this won't always make someone contemplate some odd thought or contain some sort of "statement." I shoot what pleases me. If I get "artsy" it would more than likely be because I was trying to do something the way you, or someone else would do it. This is not a rebutal to your point so much as it is merely a recognition of my own tendencies...good...bad or boring. So...am I an "artist"? Perhaps not. Do I take creat care to capture the images in the way I intend them to look? Definitely. Do I capture images in a way that pleases people I care about? Absolutely. Until I feel some urge to be odd for oddness' sake, I'll likely just keep shooting in a way that makes me happy. -And all the while, I'll still have a great appreciation for those whose natural inclination is to see things very differently. Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> Don't be too quick to label anything presented for its own beauty >> in [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > about > what is art (and therefore who is an artist) and what is not. I made a good, well-composed, nicely-colored, carefully-focused image of a subject of interest to me. I saw it as a representation of what I observed, valued, and wanted to preserve from a moment's experience. That was the entire idea. My viewing, absorbing, deciding, was artful. My focusing, framing, exposing, preserving, was crafty. The series of events resulted in an art object, the complete idea of which was to make an art object. Subsequent viewers, any number, will see the same object. Some will see a humdrum passport picture; some, an affecting window into one or more mysteries; only I will see what is actually there. The image is-or is not-art, in the experience of the observer, not in the thinking of it or in the making of it; it is in the apprehending of it. See if you can extract a 'statement about something' from this: Several years ago I downloaded a free mosaic-ing program. I selected 30 or 40 images of naked adult female humans from Naked Adult Female Human Web sites. I caused the free program to reconstruct a lovely photo of Monument Valley's East and West Mitten Buttes, and Merritt Butte, using the Naked Adult Female Human images as elements. -- Frank ess "In this universe there are things that just don't yield to thinking -plain or fancy-Dude". -J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson > See if you can extract a 'statement about something' from this: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > photo of Monument Valley's East and West Mitten Buttes, and Merritt > Butte, using the Naked Adult Female Human images as elements. Of course it's a statement about something. Why did you choose nudes? Why not landscapes? Probably to combine your love of pornography with your love of photography? Maybe it was just because it was a pleasing subject to manipulate while trying to learn something. Maybe you were just plain horny? Maybe you wanted to see how technology could make a landscape work when presented with a predominance of skin tones? Whatever the reason Frank, you consciously used nudes - and that certainly says something about the artist. :-D >>> Don't be too quick to label anything presented for its own beauty >>> in [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > see a humdrum passport picture; some, an affecting window into one or > more mysteries; only I will see what is actually there. This is an excellent description of why I don't mind that my photos aren't "artsy" in the cliche' sense of what constitutes "artsy." -Perhaps funny to throw in the word "cliche" there, but I think it is fair to say that "artsy" styles quickly become just as cliche as one more shot of the same beautiful stretch of coastline...the same mountain range...and same city scape...the same flower species...and on and on. For me, my photography connects me with moments of my life as they preserve memories and experiences. To those who weren't there, many of them will look cliche or boring. To others, they are inspired by the photos for the same reason that made me set up my tripod. > The image is-or is not-art, in the experience of the observer, not in > the thinking of it or in the making of it; it is in the apprehending [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > photo of Monument Valley's East and West Mitten Buttes, and Merritt > Butte, using the Naked Adult Female Human images as elements. Hmmm... There are tasteful nudes that capture of the incredible beauty of the human form...and then there's raw, nasty porn. The funny thing is...either one could have been used to feed that program and create the image. It's all dependant upon what we take from the image. Are we people who see each porno shot and get either aroused or disgusted? Or do we see Monument Valley? :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson It's all dependant upon what we take from the image. Are we people > who see each porno shot and get either aroused or disgusted? Or do we see > Monument Valley? An excellent point. There you go Frank, just one plausable thought that a person could come away from with. A photograph that could be beautiful from a distance or confronting close up, or even the other way around. Perhaps it's a metaphor for how you think about the world, that from a distance there is beauty but when you get down to individual we are all naked and vulnerable. :-D Maybe you could exibit a whole bunch of them. The show would be called "Up front and far away" The gallery would be split in two parts. Those wanting to be confronted could have both up close and far away access. Those wishing to see only natural beauty would have access only at the back. Two sets of people would walk away from your work with entirely different emotions... Get your portfolio together Frank, we're going to NYC!!! >> Which one is wearing a beret? To be an "artist" you have to wear a >> beret, and explain that your photograph of that rock expresses your [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > with form and emotion than a beautiful but achingly boring exact > representation of something I've seen time and time again. It all depends on what you're after as the photog. Sometimes a representation of reality is exactly what one is after, and all that one need be after--if that is your goal. Some things in nature, for example, don't need a quirky angle or goofy perspective to be extremely pleasing. You'll find many boring shots in my little collection of photos, but they please me and those who have them hanging on their walls. There is room for accurate representation...along with quirky, pretentious and artsy fartsy stuff. Neither is a problem if they are what one is looking for. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Arnold Newman, RIP. What did _he_ think about Photographers as Artists? From the New York Times: "In 1979 the National Portrait Gallery in London commissioned Mr. Newman to create portraits of Britain's leading cultural and intellectual figures. The work, appearing in an exhibition and a book called "The Great British," created a stir largely because no British photographer had been deemed adequate to the task. In 1992 the National Portrait Gallery in Washington produced an American counterpart, "Arnold Newman's Americans," using pictures selected from his work of the last 50 years. Mr. Newman remained characteristically caustic about the enthusiasm for what is now known as art photography. "Those who call themselves art photographers are pompous, arrogant egoists," he told The Detroit News in 1993." SignatureFrank ess |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.