Photographers-Do you think outside the box?
Blair
This week I have tried for something some of my readers may or may not
find a little controversial, perhaps even offensive, especially those
among who consider themselves to be true artists. Never mind, a little
lively debate, and even name-calling, always makes for interesting
reading. So, here we go:
The creative possibilities of photography are limitless. But rarely do
any of us really exploit those possibilities to the fullest. That's
because most of us take the easy road, the path of least resistance.
What I mean is, many photographers who should know better tend to shoot
the same old stereotyped images that have been shot over and over to a
point where they have become boring.
Let me ask you a question: How many versions of the same shot, same
viewpoint, same weather conditions, have you seen of the famous Ansel
Adams image, "Yosemite Valley from Inspiration Point?" I,
personally have seen it done so many times that even the original holds
no interest for me now, and that's saying something.
So, what to do? Well, you need to start thinking CREATIVELY.
What you have just read is just the beginning of an article for
photographers in the latest issue of CreativePhoto Newsletter. You can
get it at my website.
Blair
www.blairhoward.com
Paul Furman
> Photographers, Do You Think Outside The Box?
> ...
> The creative possibilities of photography are limitless. But rarely do
> any of us really exploit those possibilities to the fullest. That's
> because most of us take the easy road, the path of least resistance.
> What I mean is, many photographers who should know better tend to shoot
> the same old stereotyped images that have been shot over and over to a
> point where they have become boring.
>
> Let me ask you a question: How many versions of the same shot, same
> viewpoint, same weather conditions, have you seen of the famous Ansel
> Adams image, "Yosemite Valley from Inspiration Point?" I,
> personally have seen it done so many times that even the original holds
> no interest for me now, and that's saying something.
>
> So, what to do? Well, you need to start thinking CREATIVELY.
Fine artists often do very repetitive work for some period of time to
perfect that idea. Often based on someone elses work. I think the
repetition actually helps develop some uniqueness and depth. It's a way
of really learning a particular approach rather than glossing over
things & bouncing around haphazardly.
LoLo
"Blair" <blai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148647414.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I get so very tired of the "creative" word being used with photography.
I'll never believe that point and clicking (and workflowing with a computer)
will ever come anywhere near the creativity shown by artists and musicians
who create the whole thing with their talent and hands. Mostly "creative"
is used to sell more gear to photographers. Make the pictures you enjoy;
sometimes others will enjoy them as well - if not, so what ?
And as for outside-the-box, what a tired concept (or is that now just
another paradigm?).
Stacey
>
> I get so very tired of the "creative" word being used with photography.
> I'll never believe that point and clicking (and workflowing with a
> computer) will ever come anywhere near the creativity shown by artists and
> musicians
> who create the whole thing with their talent and hands.
Maybe "creative" is the wrong word? I think of it as the "vision" to
previsualize what the final result will be, see it as an interesting image
and have the skill set to recreate it. I saw a lot of people taking
pictures of this fountain but didn't see anyone there after dark except a
couple shapshooting with their flash blazing from this viewpoint to capture
it like this.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/dolphin.jpg
I don't see how painting this would be any better than producing this image
was and I hope someone viewing this image would get the same feel I had
when I was there. Isn't that the whole point?
I do agree with the OP, if I see another shot of a recreated AA photograph
or God forbid delicate arch at sunset, I'll puke.
--
Stacey
G.T.
"Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4dphseF...@individual.net...
> LoLo wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I get so very tired of the "creative" word being used with photography.
> > I'll never believe that point and clicking (and workflowing with a
> > computer) will ever come anywhere near the creativity shown by artists
and
> > musicians
> > who create the whole thing with their talent and hands.
>
> Maybe "creative" is the wrong word? I think of it as the "vision" to
> previsualize what the final result will be,
For landscape and nature photography I'd say "vision" is apt. But for still
lifes, portraits, abstracts, etc, where you control lighting, backdrops,
set, etc, then "creative" is more than appropriate.
Greg
Edge
"G.T." <getn...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:127f7ml...@corp.supernews.com...
in you to get you to buy some gear or in this case visit an advertising
supported web site and get on a newsletter mailing list. We all want to be
recognised as a talented creative person that is thinking outside the box
and I suppose we will buy whatever it takes to get there.
Stacey
> If shots like that were so damn boring I would
> never revisit places I've been.
>
I think that might be a personal thing. Some people seem to enjoy say going
to the same place for vacation year after year, other people, like me, feel
like once I've seen some place, I've seen it and want to do something
different next time. Neither is right or wrong, just what makes people
different. Sure some minute detail of each photograph of half dome in B&W
is different but most aren't enough different to warant reshooting it or
viewing it again. Just my opinion.
--
Stacey
J. Clarke
The reason to reshoot it is not to have the image, it's to learn the
technique. If all you do is shoot and say you're done then there's not
much point unless it's exploding or something at the time. Now, if you
take that image and compare it to Ansel Adams' from the same viewpoint and
ask yourself what's different about yours and figure out what you did
differently and go back and try it again and get closer, you're learning
things that will likely be useful later.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke
While I don't disagree on the overuse of "creative" (are you old enough to
remember Mamiya-Sekor ads for 35mm SLRs with "the creative switch", which
switched from spot to average metering?), still working within constraints
takes a different kind of creativity. I mean the painter starts with a
blank canvas and puts whatever he wants there, the photographer starts with
a filled but changing canvas and his creativity is exhibited by controlling
the viewpoint and lighting and exposure and focus and shooting at the time
when that changing canvas shows the image that he wants to record. After
all any kid with a Boy Scout camera can take a picture of Half Dome. Does
it look like one by Ansel Adams?
> And as for outside-the-box, what a tired concept (or is that now just
> another paradigm?).
--
John Falstaff
"LoLo" <LesterC...@chinatown.tv> wrote in message
news:QPidnVvHVIuy8-rZ...@comcast.com...
Same here. And "art" too.
> I'll never believe that point and clicking (and workflowing with a
> computer) will ever come anywhere near the creativity shown by artists and
> musicians who create the whole thing with their talent and hands. Mostly
> "creative" is used to sell more gear to photographers. Make the pictures
> you enjoy; sometimes others will enjoy them as well - if not, so what ?
Exactly. Striving for "creativity" or "art" in what is not inherently a
creative or artistic medium has always seemed a bit silly to me, but for
some unfathomable reason it appears to be terribly important for some people
who use cameras.
Certainly it is good to be *original* in one's photography, to experiment
and try different things, to be selective in choice of subject, angle,
perspective, etc., and thereby to produce good or even excellent photographs
which will have an appeal for many people. And digital cameras have made it
easy to tinker with those photos in ways we never could before, which is
very useful even if it's often overdone. But it's still the camera that's
doing the basic work, and a machine cannot be an "artist" unless we are
willing to do violence to the language.
John Falstaff
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:e59bg...@news3.newsguy.com...
But that isn't being "creative," it's being *selective*.
You could as well say that a statue in a museum looks especially fine when
viewed from a certain position at a certain time of day, with the window
light falling on it just so. Does viewing it in that way make the viewer an
artist? No. Then neither does photographing it from that angle at that time
of day; the photographer is being selective, and that is in fact his skill.
But it isn't art and it isn't creative.
> After
> all any kid with a Boy Scout camera can take a picture of Half Dome. Does
> it look like one by Ansel Adams?
No. Ansel Adams was a superb *technician*, and that is something not to be
sniffed at. Also he wasn't using a "Boy Scout camera," whatever that is.
Matt Clara
>
We have to--there's no light in the box...
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Stacey
>
> But that isn't being "creative," it's being *selective*.
>
> You could as well say that a statue in a museum looks especially fine when
> viewed from a certain position at a certain time of day, with the window
> light falling on it just so. Does viewing it in that way make the viewer
> an artist? No.
I agree. Just as if a painter was looking at the same thing getting an idea
for his next work.
> Then neither does photographing it from that angle at that
> time of day; the photographer is being selective, and that is in fact his
> skill. But it isn't art and it isn't creative.
>
The act of viewing the statue isn't being an artist but being able to
translate the feeling someone had while viewing the statue at that point in
time IMHO -is- an art form. I don't think the medium (paint vs film)
changes this fact. Both painting and photographing things are a skill set
needed to transmit your feelings into something that can be shared with
other people. Of course YMMV on that point. Some people feel that only
certain skill sets can be used to create art? I find that there are just as
many painters that aren't artists as there are photographers that aren't.
Interesting that oil painting vs water colors hasn't degraded to this same
point of negativity towards different mediums.
--
Stacey
Stacey
>
> But it's still
> the camera that's doing the basic work, and a machine cannot be an
> "artist" unless we are willing to do violence to the language.
I didn't realize the skill set used was what defined an object as "ART". By
your definition, does anything done using a paint brush = "ART"?
--
Stacey
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> The creative possibilities of photography are limitless. But rarely do
> any of us really exploit those possibilities to the fullest.
Since you claim the possibilities to be "limitless", it is
mathematically inpossible to exploit them to the fullest. If
anyone could do that, the possibilities would STOP there, and
thus not be limitless, but have a limit.
So you either state a false claim, or you are carrying coals
to Newcastle, wrapped in fancy colours to disguise the coal.
> That's because most of us take the easy road, the path of least
> resistance.
I thank you not to talk for me. I have reasons to believe
others may object as well.
Anyway, do *you* take the easy road? Why? Or why not? What do
_you_ do? That's interesting. Not what "we" are to do, if you
were king of the world.
> What I mean is, many photographers who should know better tend to shoot
> the same old stereotyped images that have been shot over and over to a
> point where they have become boring.
And artists are copying the images of van Goch and Rembrand and
the other classical masters. Why not? It helps them to _really_,
_deeply_ understand the fine points of creating these images.
Things you cannot learn by dry studying.
> Let me ask you a question: How many versions of the same shot, same
> viewpoint, same weather conditions, have you seen of the famous Ansel
> Adams image, "Yosemite Valley from Inspiration Point?"
None. So?
> I, personally have seen it done so many times that even the original
> holds no interest for me now, and that's saying something.
So there have been *no* changes there, no trees felled, no new
farms, nothing whatever? Not even the trees are growing?
Pray tell, dear Sir without a christian name, why are you
collecting "identical" images if you are not interested in
comparing the very same ones?
Again, what is wrong by re-creating old masterworks and seeing
how they come out? What is wrong by showing how time changes
the world?
> So, what to do? Well, you need to start thinking CREATIVELY.
Again, I thank you for not telling me how to do things when
you have absolutely zero knowledge how I do these very things.
Not because your advice, if well-though about, would not be welcome.
However, your advice is given preemtively, without though of
my circumstances, blindly, in a knee-jerk reaction I really
don't warrant. Not only have I never been to Insporation Point,
nor anywhere close to it, I also am not a landscape photographer
and I do not recreate photographs --- it is not my style and my
way of working.
> What you have just read is just the beginning of an article for
> photographers in the latest issue of CreativePhoto Newsletter. You can
> get it at my website.
Are you not even interested in discussion, but only in traffic?
If that was so, please be gone and don't let the door slap you
on the way out.
The tasteful way, if you really intended and needed just an
announcement, would be to say so first, and give the URL and an
abstract second.
-Wolfgang
John Falstaff
Painting a wall, no.
Painting a picture, yes.
John Falstaff
> John Falstaff wrote:
>
>>
>> But that isn't being "creative," it's being *selective*.
>>
>> You could as well say that a statue in a museum looks especially fine
>> when
>> viewed from a certain position at a certain time of day, with the window
>> light falling on it just so. Does viewing it in that way make the viewer
>> an artist? No.
>
> I agree. Just as if a painter was looking at the same thing getting an
> idea
> for his next work.
>
>> Then neither does photographing it from that angle at that
>> time of day; the photographer is being selective, and that is in fact his
>> skill. But it isn't art and it isn't creative.
>>
>
> The act of viewing the statue isn't being an artist but being able to
> translate the feeling someone had while viewing the statue at that point
> in
> time IMHO -is- an art form.
What's this "translate the feeling"? No offense, but that just sounds like
gibberish to me.
> I don't think the medium (paint vs film)
> changes this fact. Both painting and photographing things are a skill set
> needed to transmit your feelings into something that can be shared with
> other people.
There you go with the "feelings" again. I would sure like to know how you
"transmit your feelings" with a photograph.
You find an appealing subject. You have certain feelings about that subject,
viewed in that way. You photograph it. Someone else who views your
photograph may or may not have the same feelings about it that you did, but
in either case how is that "transmitting YOUR feelings"? (emphasis added)
Certain subjects may, and often do, elicit similar feelings in different
people. That is hardly "transmitting [their] feelings" from person to
person, and it seems to me the height of arrogance for any photographer to
presume that that's what he's doing.
> Of course YMMV on that point. Some people feel that only
> certain skill sets can be used to create art?
The point is not that "certain skill sets" qualify as art while others do
not; the point is that art is done by an artist, not by a recording device.
> I find that there are just as
> many painters that aren't artists as there are photographers that aren't.
I think you are confusing art with something else. There are indeed many
painters who are very poor artists, but they are artists all the same, no
matter how inferior the quality of their work. Art is not necessarily
beautiful, appealing, good, interesting or even competent.
Contrariwise, a photograph is not art just because it's beautiful or
appealing, or even evokes "feelings" in the viewer. Many kinds of recordings
evoke feelings. Recordings of songs often do, to take the obvious example.
The singer may have been an artist but the person making the recording was a
technician, not an artist, even if he made a much better recording than
someone else might have.
Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be much
more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone lacking those
skills. It's not a trivial thing to be an expert technician, and no reason
for an accomplished technician to imagine he's an artist. Why some
photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious fact, I do not
know.
Wolfgang Schmittenhammer
> "Blair" <blai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1148647414.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Photographers, Do You Think Outside The Box?
>>
>
>
>
> We have to--there's no light in the box...
>
And inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx.
Larion Vasilkovsky
You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned how
to use their instruments: throats and lungs.
"John Falstaff" <n...@home.today> wrote in message
news:NcudnbzTpLF...@comcast.com...
G.T.
>
> Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be much
> more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone lacking those
> skills. It's not a trivial thing to be an expert technician, and no reason
> for an accomplished technician to imagine he's an artist. Why some
> photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious fact, I do not
> know.
>
If you want to just be a technician that's fine. Clearly you're too
ignorant to see where the artistry enters the image.
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
John Falstaff
"Larion Vasilkovsky" <lar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:800eg.86545$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> John,
> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned how
> to use their instruments: throats and lungs.
But he or she is doing it himself or herself. A machine isn't doing it for
him or her.
Of course, *any* artists have to "use their instruments," whether natural or
otherwise, and use them competently or otherwise.
John Falstaff
> John Falstaff wrote:
>>
>> Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be
>> much more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone
>> lacking those skills. It's not a trivial thing to be an expert
>> technician, and no reason for an accomplished technician to imagine he's
>> an artist. Why some photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly
>> obvious fact, I do not know.
>>
>
> If you want to just be a technician that's fine. Clearly you're too
> ignorant to see where the artistry enters the image.
Oooh, another technician who thinks he's an artist, and has tender, easily
injured feelings about it too.
J. Clarke
So a singer is "creative" but a pianist isn't?
J. Clarke
Painting a realistic picture of that statute isn't creative either then.
>> After
>> all any kid with a Boy Scout camera can take a picture of Half Dome.
>> Does it look like one by Ansel Adams?
>
> No. Ansel Adams was a superb *technician*, and that is something not to be
> sniffed at. Also he wasn't using a "Boy Scout camera," whatever that is.
Are you by any chance a painter or the like?
J. Clarke
Well, I was assuming that you weren't trolling, but comments such as those
deserve only one response: "<plonk>"
Stacey
>
> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4drb56F...@individual.net...
>> John Falstaff wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But that isn't being "creative," it's being *selective*.
>>>
>>> You could as well say that a statue in a museum looks especially fine
>>> when
>>> viewed from a certain position at a certain time of day, with the window
>>> light falling on it just so. Does viewing it in that way make the viewer
>>> an artist? No.
>>
>> I agree. Just as if a painter was looking at the same thing getting an
>> idea
>> for his next work.
>>
>>> Then neither does photographing it from that angle at that
>>> time of day; the photographer is being selective, and that is in fact
>>> his skill. But it isn't art and it isn't creative.
>>>
>>
>> The act of viewing the statue isn't being an artist but being able to
>> translate the feeling someone had while viewing the statue at that point
>> in
>> time IMHO -is- an art form.
>
> What's this "translate the feeling"? No offense, but that just sounds like
> gibberish to me.
You've never felt something viewing a photograph?
>
>
>> I don't think the medium (paint vs film)
>> changes this fact. Both painting and photographing things are a skill set
>> needed to transmit your feelings into something that can be shared with
>> other people.
>
> There you go with the "feelings" again. I would sure like to know how you
> "transmit your feelings" with a photograph.
See above, again you've never felt anything looking at a photograph? Or must
it be done with a brush and paint to covey emotion and be considered art?
>
> You find an appealing subject. You have certain feelings about that
> subject, viewed in that way. You photograph it. Someone else who views
> your photograph may or may not have the same feelings about it that you
> did, but in either case how is that "transmitting YOUR feelings"?
> (emphasis added)
If you make them feel the same way you did, then you TRANSMITTED YOUR
FEELINGS which is what we should be trying to do. Recording what a person
looks like for future reference etc isn't "art" just like lots of painting
are not "art" either.
>
> Certain subjects may, and often do, elicit similar feelings in different
> people. That is hardly "transmitting [their] feelings" from person to
> person, and it seems to me the height of arrogance for any photographer to
> presume that that's what he's doing.
If they aren't attempting to do this, there is little point in bothering to
create that image!
>
>
>> Of course YMMV on that point. Some people feel that only
>> certain skill sets can be used to create art?
>
> The point is not that "certain skill sets" qualify as art while others do
> not; the point is that art is done by an artist, not by a recording
> device.
You presume ANYONE holding the camera could produce the same image, or that
the camera itself can do this. Tell you what, send your camera outside and
post what it captures for us!
>
>
>> I find that there are just as
>> many painters that aren't artists as there are photographers that aren't.
>
> I think you are confusing art with something else.
Sorry but you seem to be the one doing this. You seem to believe the camera
is what makes a good photographer, that isn't the case.
> There are indeed many
> painters who are very poor artists, but they are artists all the same, no
> matter how inferior the quality of their work. Art is not necessarily
> beautiful, appealing, good, interesting or even competent.
If it coveys no feeling, it's not art.
>
> The singer may have been an artist but the person making
> the recording was a technician, not an artist, even if he made a much
> better recording than someone else might have.
Here we disagree. I've seen recording "technicians" who I consider "artists"
because their skillset is what makes the final product good. Their ability
to hear what needs to be clipped, what level should be set where etc is
what brings the recording to life.
> Why some photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious
> fact, I do not know.
Maybe because it IS insulting? This is like argueing about "Bokeh", there
are people who will not accept this even exists and it's pointless trying
to get them to see that it does. You obviously believe the CAMERA is what
creates the photograph and the person behind the camera has nothing to do
with the process. It would be like saying the brush is what creates a
painting so the person holding the brush has nothing to do with what is
created.
--
Stacey
Stacey
>
> "Larion Vasilkovsky" <lar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:800eg.86545$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> John,
>> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned
>> how to use their instruments: throats and lungs.
>
> But he or she is doing it himself or herself. A machine isn't doing it for
> him or her.
So what about the brush a painter uses? Or an electric guitar?
>
> Of course, *any* artists have to "use their instruments," whether natural
> or otherwise, and use them competently or otherwise.
So why is a camera excluded as being a "instrument"?
--
Stacey
Stacey
> John Falstaff wrote:
>>
>> No. Ansel Adams was a superb *technician*, and that is something not to
>> be sniffed at. Also he wasn't using a "Boy Scout camera," whatever that
>> is.
>
> Are you by any chance a painter or the like?
>
Sounds like an elitist one to boot!
--
Stacey
Stacey
So how do you define "A picture"? Does a stripe on a wall make it become art
by your narrow definition used here?
--
Stacey
Alan Browne
> So, what to do? Well, you need to start thinking CREATIVELY.
I personally avoid what are blatent spam posts.
John Falstaff
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> John Falstaff wrote:
>
>>
>> "Larion Vasilkovsky" <lar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:800eg.86545$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>> John,
>>> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned
>>> how to use their instruments: throats and lungs.
>>
>> But he or she is doing it himself or herself. A machine isn't doing it
>> for
>> him or her.
>>
>> Of course, *any* artists have to "use their instruments," whether natural
>> or otherwise, and use them competently or otherwise.
>
> So a singer is "creative" but a pianist isn't?
With a camera, I doubt either one is.
John Falstaff
> John Falstaff wrote:
>
>>
>> "Larion Vasilkovsky" <lar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:800eg.86545$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>> John,
>>> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned
>>> how to use their instruments: throats and lungs.
>>
>> But he or she is doing it himself or herself. A machine isn't doing it
>> for
>> him or her.
>
> So what about the brush a painter uses?
The brush is a tool. It decides nothing, designs nothing, creates nothing.
> Or an electric guitar?
>
>>
>> Of course, *any* artists have to "use their instruments," whether natural
>> or otherwise, and use them competently or otherwise.
>
> So why is a camera excluded as being a "instrument"?
It's not. There are all sorts of instruments for all sorts of purposes. An
oil-pressure gauge isn't generally used creatively either.
John Falstaff
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
Your departure is of course a tragic and crushing event, but I will try to
bear up under it somehow.
John Falstaff
Of course. But I've generally "felt something" more intensely in the
presence of the actual subject, than looking at a picture of it.
Irrelevant anyway. Art does not require that you "feel something."
>
>>
>>
>>> I don't think the medium (paint vs film)
>>> changes this fact. Both painting and photographing things are a skill
>>> set
>>> needed to transmit your feelings into something that can be shared with
>>> other people.
>>
>> There you go with the "feelings" again. I would sure like to know how you
>> "transmit your feelings" with a photograph.
>
>
> See above, again you've never felt anything looking at a photograph? Or
> must
> it be done with a brush and paint to covey emotion and be considered art?
Brush and paint do not imply art in and of themselves. For example, painting
a house is not (usually) art.
>
>>
>> You find an appealing subject. You have certain feelings about that
>> subject, viewed in that way. You photograph it. Someone else who views
>> your photograph may or may not have the same feelings about it that you
>> did, but in either case how is that "transmitting YOUR feelings"?
>> (emphasis added)
>
> If you make them feel the same way you did,
But you didn't "make them feel the same way you did." Why do you keep
leaping to that conclusion? Again, that is just the height of arrogance. If
they react a certain way to a certain subject, then it's the subject that's
doing it -- not the fact that you recorded its image. Whoop de doo, you can
press a shutter release. Notify the media.
> then you TRANSMITTED YOUR
> FEELINGS which is what we should be trying to do.
WHY is it "what we should be trying to do"? Who says so?
Do you really think the world revolves around you, such that YOUR FEELINGS
should be conveyed to everyone?
> Recording what a person
> looks like for future reference etc isn't "art" just like lots of painting
> are not "art" either.
If someone paints (or draws, or chisels) a picture, it's art.
>
>>
>> Certain subjects may, and often do, elicit similar feelings in different
>> people. That is hardly "transmitting [their] feelings" from person to
>> person, and it seems to me the height of arrogance for any photographer
>> to
>> presume that that's what he's doing.
>
> If they aren't attempting to do this, there is little point in bothering
> to
> create that image!
Then you really do believe the world revolves around you, and is waiting
breathlessly for you to "transmit your feelings" to all?
Remarkable.
>
>>
>>
>>> Of course YMMV on that point. Some people feel that only
>>> certain skill sets can be used to create art?
>>
>> The point is not that "certain skill sets" qualify as art while others do
>> not; the point is that art is done by an artist, not by a recording
>> device.
>
> You presume ANYONE holding the camera could produce the same image,
Not at all. I have said in fact that some technicians are more expert than
others.
> or that
> the camera itself can do this. Tell you what, send your camera outside and
> post what it captures for us!
Actually, that (or experiments close to it) have been done, and yes, the
people who did it have called that art too.
There is no limit to the things that silly people will call "art."
>
>
>>
>>
>>> I find that there are just as
>>> many painters that aren't artists as there are photographers that
>>> aren't.
>>
>> I think you are confusing art with something else.
>
> Sorry but you seem to be the one doing this. You seem to believe the
> camera
> is what makes a good photographer, that isn't the case.
Then you have a severe reading deficiency. Or if you don't think so, please
point out where I said, hinted, suggested or implied that "the camera is
what makes a good photographer." I have said repeatedly that photographers
are technicians, and some are much better technicians than others.
>
>> There are indeed many
>> painters who are very poor artists, but they are artists all the same, no
>> matter how inferior the quality of their work. Art is not necessarily
>> beautiful, appealing, good, interesting or even competent.
>
> If it coveys no feeling, it's not art.
Ridiculous. You have just said in effect that you and your feelings are the
sole determiner of what is and isn't art.
Art is art whether it does anything for you or not. Primitive African art
for example doesn't do a thing for me, but it's still art. A child in
kindergarten who draws a stick figure with crayon is creating art. Does that
art have any value? No, except probably to mommy or daddy, but it's still
art. The same kindergarten kiddie could probably bring up a far better
picture by pressing a computer key or clicking a mouse, but that wouldn't be
art -- at least not *his* art.
>
>>
>> The singer may have been an artist but the person making
>> the recording was a technician, not an artist, even if he made a much
>> better recording than someone else might have.
>
> Here we disagree. I've seen recording "technicians" who I consider
> "artists"
> because their skillset is what makes the final product good.
I'm sure you're right, i.e. they are good technicians. Still not artists
unless they can create something that wasn't there before. (The *definition*
of "create," you know.)
The same of course applies to photographers. There are large gray areas in
which people may agree or disagree as to what art is.
For example, one may create art on a computer by using suitable software.
There's no earthly reason why brush or paint should be regarded as any more
legitimate tools for creating art than, say, mouse or graphics tablet. Can
an artist combine photos, or parts of photos, in a work of art? Sure. All
that's required is that he *create* the work of art -- and not just record
it, however skillfully.
So does computer or other manipulation of a single photograph eventually
become art? Probably, though reasonable people may disagree on where exactly
that point is.
Of course *you* would not disagree -- as long as the result is pretty or
otherwise "conveys feelings" to you, you'll call it art.
> Their ability
> to hear what needs to be clipped, what level should be set where etc is
> what brings the recording to life.
>
>
>> Why some photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious
>> fact, I do not know.
>
> Maybe because it IS insulting?
Only to people whose pompous image of themselves as "artists" is important
to them. No reasonable, realistic person would ever be insulted.
> This is like argueing about "Bokeh", there
> are people who will not accept this even exists and it's pointless trying
> to get them to see that it does. You obviously believe the CAMERA is what
> creates the photograph
It does, and you can easily prove this to yourself. Try making a photograph
without a camera. The camera, on the other hand, can be set to make
photographs without you. Nowadays there are probably more photos made
without human intervention than with.
> and the person behind the camera has nothing to do
> with the process.
Again, this is something you're apparently hung up on but I never said. Read
through all my posts on this subject and see if you can find anything saying
"the person behind the camera has nothing to do with the process." I never
said anything remotely like that.
John Falstaff
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
I was, a long time ago. Now my image-making interests lie only in
photography.
John Falstaff
I offered no definition, "narrow" or otherwise. You asked me about using a
paintbrush. I don't think I would define "picture" differently from most
other people. Does "a stripe on a wall" really look like a picture to you?
Stacey
>
> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4drqgrF...@individual.net...
>> John Falstaff wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Larion Vasilkovsky" <lar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:800eg.86545$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> John,
>>>> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned
>>>> how to use their instruments: throats and lungs.
>>>
>>> But he or she is doing it himself or herself. A machine isn't doing it
>>> for
>>> him or her.
>>
>> So what about the brush a painter uses?
>
> The brush is a tool. It decides nothing, designs nothing, creates nothing.
Neither does a camera unless a human is interfacing with it. You're
confusing a snap shooter (with everything on full auto with no idea of what
they are doing) with a photographer. The people who put ZERO thought into
what they are doing. They are like a person who uses a paint by numbers
set, they aren't an artist IMHO either.
> creates nothing.
Actually it is what is used to create a painting, just like a musical
instrument is used to create music.
>
>
>> Or an electric guitar?
>>
>>>
>>> Of course, *any* artists have to "use their instruments," whether
>>> natural or otherwise, and use them competently or otherwise.
>>
>> So why is a camera excluded as being a "instrument"?
>
> It's not. There are all sorts of instruments for all sorts of purposes. An
> oil-pressure gauge isn't generally used creatively either.
But an oil pressure gauge doesn't require any human interface for it to
work, it's just like that statue you used in an earlier post. It's for
viewing only as it doesn't create anything with it's use.
--
Stacey
Stacey
>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> Are you by any chance a painter or the like?
>
> I was, a long time ago.
That explains it.....
--
Stacey
Stacey
>
> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> You've never felt something viewing a photograph?
>
> Of course. But I've generally "felt something" more intensely in the
> presence of the actual subject, than looking at a picture of it.
So?
>
> Irrelevant anyway. Art does not require that you "feel something."
I guess that's where we disagree... I think whether something is "art" or
not is a personal thing.
>>
>>>
>>> You find an appealing subject. You have certain feelings about that
>>> subject, viewed in that way. You photograph it. Someone else who views
>>> your photograph may or may not have the same feelings about it that you
>>> did, but in either case how is that "transmitting YOUR feelings"?
>>> (emphasis added)
>>
>> If you make them feel the same way you did,
>
> But you didn't "make them feel the same way you did." Why do you keep
> leaping to that conclusion? Again, that is just the height of arrogance.
> If they react a certain way to a certain subject, then it's the subject
> that's doing it -- not the fact that you recorded its image.
It's- HOW- it was recorded that can make an image speak to someone or not.
Give 5 photographers a camera and stand them in front of the same subject
and you'll likely get 5 different interpritations of the same thing that
was in front of all of them.
> Whoop de doo,
> you can press a shutter release. Notify the media.
There is a bit more to being a good photographer than pressing a shutter.
And you wonder why people get insulted? Someone could just as easily say
"Whoop de doo you can smear some paint around on a canvas" yet you would
consider it art just because of the medium used.
>
>
>> then you TRANSMITTED YOUR
>> FEELINGS which is what we should be trying to do.
>
> WHY is it "what we should be trying to do"? Who says so?
If you're trying to create something meaningful with your photography you
should be. Otherwise you're right, it's just snapshooting..
>
> Do you really think the world revolves around you, such that YOUR FEELINGS
> should be conveyed to everyone?
Where did I say the world revolves around me? And you don't think other
artists are trying to convey their emotions when they are creating works of
art?
>
>
>> Recording what a person
>> looks like for future reference etc isn't "art" just like lots of
>> painting are not "art" either.
>
> If someone paints (or draws, or chisels) a picture, it's art.
Again this is another point we disagree on. I've seen a BUNCH of painted,
drawn, chiseled things I'd never consider being art. How about blueprints,
is that considered art to you as well? Where do you draw the line there?
Defining art as a "drawn picture" sure doesn't fit how I see art fitting
into our world.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Certain subjects may, and often do, elicit similar feelings in different
>>> people. That is hardly "transmitting [their] feelings" from person to
>>> person, and it seems to me the height of arrogance for any photographer
>>> to
>>> presume that that's what he's doing.
>>
>> If they aren't attempting to do this, there is little point in bothering
>> to
>> create that image!
>
> Then you really do believe the world revolves around you, and is waiting
> breathlessly for you to "transmit your feelings" to all?
So what in your opinion is the purpose of art? To just spend time brushing
paint onto a canvas without any of yourself being transmitted to the work
itself?
>
> Remarkable.
>
Why are you starting all this personal insult stuff?
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Of course YMMV on that point. Some people feel that only
>>>> certain skill sets can be used to create art?
>>>
>>> The point is not that "certain skill sets" qualify as art while others
>>> do not; the point is that art is done by an artist, not by a recording
>>> device.
>>
>> You presume ANYONE holding the camera could produce the same image,
>
> Not at all. I have said in fact that some technicians are more expert than
> others.
Same could be said for someone playing a musical instrument reading a sheet
of music in front of them that someone else wrote. Who is the artist there?
The person playing or the person who wrote it?
>
>
>> or that
>> the camera itself can do this. Tell you what, send your camera outside
>> and post what it captures for us!
>
> Actually, that (or experiments close to it) have been done, and yes, the
> people who did it have called that art too.
>
> There is no limit to the things that silly people will call "art."
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I find that there are just as
>>>> many painters that aren't artists as there are photographers that
>>>> aren't.
>>>
>>> I think you are confusing art with something else.
>>
>> Sorry but you seem to be the one doing this. You seem to believe the
>> camera
>> is what makes a good photographer, that isn't the case.
>
> Then you have a severe reading deficiency. Or if you don't think so,
> please point out where I said, hinted, suggested or implied that "the
> camera is what makes a good photographer." I have said repeatedly that
> photographers are technicians, and some are much better technicians than
> others.
Try reading your words in this very post..
" Whoop de doo, you can press a shutter release."
What did you mean by that?
>
>
>>
>>> There are indeed many
>>> painters who are very poor artists, but they are artists all the same,
>>> no matter how inferior the quality of their work. Art is not necessarily
>>> beautiful, appealing, good, interesting or even competent.
>>
>> If it coveys no feeling, it's not art.
>
> Ridiculous.
Again that's where you and I differ.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> The singer may have been an artist but the person making
>>> the recording was a technician, not an artist, even if he made a much
>>> better recording than someone else might have.
>>
>> Here we disagree. I've seen recording "technicians" who I consider
>> "artists"
>> because their skillset is what makes the final product good.
>
> I'm sure you're right, i.e. they are good technicians. Still not artists
> unless they can create something that wasn't there before. (The
> *definition* of "create," you know.)
But if they hadn't been involved, the final product would never exist. Amny
time individual artists are recorded and then mixed together to make the
final product. It didn';t exist before this person mixed them together.
Back to the above senerio, if someone is playing music someone else wrote,
which one is the artist? If the person hadn't written the music it wouldn't
exist but also requires someone to play it. There are multiple artists
involved in the chain that creates the final product.
>
> The same of course applies to photographers. There are large gray areas in
> which people may agree or disagree as to what art is.
>
> For example, one may create art on a computer by using suitable software.
> There's no earthly reason why brush or paint should be regarded as any
> more legitimate tools for creating art than, say, mouse or graphics
> tablet. Can an artist combine photos, or parts of photos, in a work of
> art? Sure. All that's required is that he *create* the work of art -- and
> not just record it, however skillfully.
What you fail to comprehend is most good "art photographs" are an
interpretation of what was in front of the camera, not a literal recording
of something. Even just shooting in black and white has created something
different from what was seen.
>
> So does computer or other manipulation of a single photograph eventually
> become art? Probably, though reasonable people may disagree on where
> exactly that point is.
>
> Of course *you* would not disagree -- as long as the result is pretty or
> otherwise "conveys feelings" to you, you'll call it art.
Where did I say anything about it "being pretty" defines it as a work of
art? Before I tell you how this was created, would you consider this art?
http://stephe_2.tripod.com/newpics4.htm
Or this?
http://stephe_2.tripod.com/newpics2.htm
>
>
>> Their ability
>> to hear what needs to be clipped, what level should be set where etc is
>> what brings the recording to life.
>>
>>
>>> Why some photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious
>>> fact, I do not know.
>>
>> Maybe because it IS insulting?
>
> Only to people whose pompous image of themselves as "artists" is important
> to them. No reasonable, realistic person would ever be insulted.
So you saying " Whoop de doo, you can press a shutter release." to someone
who just spent a couple of hours (or months?) studying a scene, waiting for
the right light, choosing the right focus point and fstop to get their
previsualised image recorded in a way that it can be recreated the way they
saw it in their mind, isn't insulting in your opinion? And you call me
"pompous" because you insulted me like this?
>
>
>> This is like argueing about "Bokeh", there
>> are people who will not accept this even exists and it's pointless trying
>> to get them to see that it does. You obviously believe the CAMERA is what
>> creates the photograph
>
> It does, and you can easily prove this to yourself. Try making a
> photograph without a camera. The camera, on the other hand, can be set to
> make photographs without you.
I never said every photograph is art now did I? You're the one who is
saying ANYTHING drawn is considered art. How about blueprints, is that
considered art to you?
>
>> and the person behind the camera has nothing to do
>> with the process.
>
> Again, this is something you're apparently hung up on but I never said.
> Read through all my posts on this subject and see if you can find anything
> saying "the person behind the camera has nothing to do with the process."
> I never said anything remotely like that.
You just discount it as "pressing a button"..
--
Stacey
achilleas...@yahoo.co.uk
> Blair <blai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The creative possibilities of photography are limitless. But rarely do
> > any of us really exploit those possibilities to the fullest.
>
> Since you claim the possibilities to be "limitless", it is
> mathematically inpossible to exploit them to the fullest. If
> anyone could do that, the possibilities would STOP there, and
> thus not be limitless, but have a limit.
>
Ah, but he did not specify it is to be done in a finite amount of time.
It is also possible that we exploit them up to a fraction of the total,
and that this fraction can be made to approach unity without ever
reaching it in a finite amount of time (ie successive values form a
Cauchy sequence).
See, maybe he makes sense!
> > That's because most of us take the easy road, the path of least
> > resistance.
>
> I thank you not to talk for me. I have reasons to believe
> others may object as well.
Nonsense. We all do. In fact, everything does, or at least, everything
happens so as to minimise an approriate action: see eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action
similar things can be set up for quantum mechanics, general relativity
etc. In fact, it's usually possible to reformulate anything into such a
form, ie into a form like: "Find the behaviour that minimises the
following functional"; this functional is called an action, thus the
path of least action (which is close enough to path of least
resistance).
Again, he's making sense!
> > What I mean is, many photographers who should know better tend to shoot
> > the same old stereotyped images that have been shot over and over to a
> > point where they have become boring.
>
> And artists are copying the images of van Goch and Rembrand and
> the other classical masters. Why not? It helps them to _really_,
> _deeply_ understand the fine points of creating these images.
> Things you cannot learn by dry studying.
>
Must agree with you there. Repetition and rediscovery is the only way
to technical perfection and understanding, which is a prerequisite for
good work (in whatever field).
But I think I have demonstrated that the original spammer.. er, poster
does have some valid points. Or perhaps not. Hmmm......
Stacey
http://www.paceprints.com/artistportfolio/artistportfolio.asp?aID=24&offset=4
So where do you draw the line here? I've seen "pictures" that are a single
stripe across a canvas, so I guess it depends if it's done on a canvas, a
wall or maybe who was holding the brush?
--
Stacey
John Falstaff
> John Falstaff wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4drqgrF...@individual.net...
>>> John Falstaff wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Larion Vasilkovsky" <lar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:800eg.86545$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>> John,
>>>>> You can make same argument regarding a singer too. He/She just learned
>>>>> how to use their instruments: throats and lungs.
>>>>
>>>> But he or she is doing it himself or herself. A machine isn't doing it
>>>> for
>>>> him or her.
>>>
>>> So what about the brush a painter uses?
>>
>> The brush is a tool. It decides nothing, designs nothing, creates
>> nothing.
>
> Neither does a camera unless a human is interfacing with it.
Not true at all. Most of today's cameras decide quite a lot on their own,
and as already mentioned many cameras take loads of photos without human
intervention. Are such photos "art" if they happen to look exactly like
photos taken by live photographers?
> You're
> confusing a snap shooter (with everything on full auto with no idea of
> what
> they are doing) with a photographer. The people who put ZERO thought into
> what they are doing. They are like a person who uses a paint by numbers
> set, they aren't an artist IMHO either.
But I'm not speaking of such people. I am assuming a thoughtful, skilled
technician.
>
>> creates nothing.
>
> Actually it is what is used to create a painting, just like a musical
> instrument is used to create music.
>
>>
>>
>>> Or an electric guitar?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, *any* artists have to "use their instruments," whether
>>>> natural or otherwise, and use them competently or otherwise.
>>>
>>> So why is a camera excluded as being a "instrument"?
>>
>> It's not. There are all sorts of instruments for all sorts of purposes.
>> An
>> oil-pressure gauge isn't generally used creatively either.
>
> But an oil pressure gauge doesn't require any human interface for it to
> work, it's just like that statue you used in an earlier post. It's for
> viewing only as it doesn't create anything with it's use.
Just so.
J. Clarke
With less than a lap to go and noting that the oil pressure is exceedingly
high indicating imminent failure of something or other that is likely to
spill much oil on the track, the race driver maneuvers frantically to
maintain position in front of his arch rival, hoping that when the part
blows his rival will spin out in the resulting oil slick, causing a
multicar pileup that takes out the rest of the pack, allowing him to coast
across the finish line on inertia in solitary splendor.
Even an oil pressure gage can be used "creatively".
John Falstaff
> John Falstaff wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>> You've never felt something viewing a photograph?
>>
>> Of course. But I've generally "felt something" more intensely in the
>> presence of the actual subject, than looking at a picture of it.
>
>
> So?
So obviously the subject is what's making me feel something, not its being
recorded as a photograph.
>
>>
>> Irrelevant anyway. Art does not require that you "feel something."
>
> I guess that's where we disagree... I think whether something is "art" or
> not is a personal thing.
So if you "feel something" it's art, and if not it's not?
Again, you seem to believe that the world revolves around you, and it's only
you and your "feelings" that determine what's art.
Or do other peoples' "feelings" count too? If someone sees a rock and it
causes him to have "feelings," the rock then becomes "art"?
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You find an appealing subject. You have certain feelings about that
>>>> subject, viewed in that way. You photograph it. Someone else who views
>>>> your photograph may or may not have the same feelings about it that you
>>>> did, but in either case how is that "transmitting YOUR feelings"?
>>>> (emphasis added)
>>>
>>> If you make them feel the same way you did,
>>
>> But you didn't "make them feel the same way you did." Why do you keep
>> leaping to that conclusion? Again, that is just the height of arrogance.
>> If they react a certain way to a certain subject, then it's the subject
>> that's doing it -- not the fact that you recorded its image.
>
> It's- HOW- it was recorded that can make an image speak to someone or not.
> Give 5 photographers a camera and stand them in front of the same subject
> and you'll likely get 5 different interpritations of the same thing that
> was in front of all of them.
Probably five different pictures, yes. Different "interpretations" -- how
would you possibly know this? You keep jumping to these conclusions.
>
>
>> Whoop de doo,
>> you can press a shutter release. Notify the media.
>
> There is a bit more to being a good photographer than pressing a shutter.
> And you wonder why people get insulted? Someone could just as easily say
> "Whoop de doo you can smear some paint around on a canvas" yet you would
> consider it art just because of the medium used.
Not necessarily, and in fact paint "smeared around on a canvas" doesn't do a
thing for me. But that is getting into one of the gray areas I mentioned
before.
>
>>
>>
>>> then you TRANSMITTED YOUR
>>> FEELINGS which is what we should be trying to do.
>>
>> WHY is it "what we should be trying to do"? Who says so?
>
> If you're trying to create something meaningful with your photography you
> should be.
Who says I "should be"? Who has the right to tell me what I should or
shouldn't be doing in my photography?
> Otherwise you're right, it's just snapshooting..
But "just snapshooting" is a perfectly proper and valid use of photography.
>
>>
>> Do you really think the world revolves around you, such that YOUR
>> FEELINGS
>> should be conveyed to everyone?
>
> Where did I say the world revolves around me?
You've implied it several times now, e.g. just above:
>>> then you TRANSMITTED YOUR
>>> FEELINGS which is what we should be trying to do.
Why do you think the world is waiting for this transmission of YOUR
FEELINGS?
> And you don't think other
> artists are trying to convey their emotions when they are creating works
> of
> art?
Not usually. I've done a good deal of artwork, practically none of it
"trying to convey [my] emotions." Most artists (in almost any medium) who
talk like that are in fact just being pretentious -- and generally what they
do is the most easily forgotten stuff. Sometimes pretentiousness does pay
off, though, especially if the artist has managed to make a name for
himself.
>
>>
>>
>>> Recording what a person
>>> looks like for future reference etc isn't "art" just like lots of
>>> painting are not "art" either.
>>
>> If someone paints (or draws, or chisels) a picture, it's art.
>
> Again this is another point we disagree on. I've seen a BUNCH of painted,
> drawn, chiseled things I'd never consider being art. How about blueprints,
> is that considered art to you as well?
No, that's a form of technical drawing. Too constrained to be art, since the
draftsman cannot really create anything in it. Every line is dictated.
> Where do you draw the line there?
> Defining art as a "drawn picture" sure doesn't fit how I see art fitting
> into our world.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Certain subjects may, and often do, elicit similar feelings in
>>>> different
>>>> people. That is hardly "transmitting [their] feelings" from person to
>>>> person, and it seems to me the height of arrogance for any photographer
>>>> to
>>>> presume that that's what he's doing.
>>>
>>> If they aren't attempting to do this, there is little point in bothering
>>> to
>>> create that image!
>>
>> Then you really do believe the world revolves around you, and is waiting
>> breathlessly for you to "transmit your feelings" to all?
>
> So what in your opinion is the purpose of art? To just spend time brushing
> paint onto a canvas without any of yourself being transmitted to the work
> itself?
The "purpose of art" varies a great deal. Much of it is commercial --
magazine illustrations, advertising and that sort of thing, though
increasingly these areas are being replaced by photography. (Which is to
say, artists are being replaced by technicians.)
Fine art of course is something else entirely, and there you do have the
element of self-expression. Some artists have a powerful compulsion to
paint. They aren't "trying to transmit their feelings" to anyone, they paint
because they have this irresistible need to paint. Self-expression does not
necessarily have anything to do with communicating one's feelings or
anything else to other people. The self-expression is its own end. The
artist works to please himself. If others like his work, so much the better,
but that isn't why he paints. If that's his goal, he's being false to
himself.
I believe that photography should be the same in that respect, even when
it's not art (and it usually isn't). If you're doing commercial photography
you have to please the client. If you're doing photography for yourself, I
think you should do what pleases you. I don't know why you think you should
"transmit your feelings" to other people via photography. I just don't
understand that at all, and I doubt you can do it anyway. What "feelings"
exactly do you think you're transmitting?
>
>>
>> Remarkable.
>>
>
> Why are you starting all this personal insult stuff?
I'm sorry. Your view of "art" does appear to be very subjective and
self-centered, from what you yourself have said. I intended no insult and I
apologize if what I've said gave offense. My guess is that you got most of
this "transmit your feelings" stuff from other people, pretentious people
who say things that sound good but are really meaningless. There are lots of
such people.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Of course YMMV on that point. Some people feel that only
>>>>> certain skill sets can be used to create art?
>>>>
>>>> The point is not that "certain skill sets" qualify as art while others
>>>> do not; the point is that art is done by an artist, not by a recording
>>>> device.
>>>
>>> You presume ANYONE holding the camera could produce the same image,
>>
>> Not at all. I have said in fact that some technicians are more expert
>> than
>> others.
>
> Same could be said for someone playing a musical instrument reading a
> sheet
> of music in front of them that someone else wrote. Who is the artist
> there?
> The person playing or the person who wrote it?
That's probably another gray area, but offhand I would say "it depends." The
person who wrote the music of course is its creator, and therefore the
artist. The person who plays it may or may not be an artist in his own
right. Does he simply follow the notes as written, or does he add something
significant on his own? Some singers I consider artists, some are just
competent singers. Again, this is an area where I think reasonable people
may disagree.
>
>>
>>
>>> or that
>>> the camera itself can do this. Tell you what, send your camera outside
>>> and post what it captures for us!
>>
>> Actually, that (or experiments close to it) have been done, and yes, the
>> people who did it have called that art too.
>>
>> There is no limit to the things that silly people will call "art."
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I find that there are just as
>>>>> many painters that aren't artists as there are photographers that
>>>>> aren't.
>>>>
>>>> I think you are confusing art with something else.
>>>
>>> Sorry but you seem to be the one doing this. You seem to believe the
>>> camera
>>> is what makes a good photographer, that isn't the case.
>>
>> Then you have a severe reading deficiency. Or if you don't think so,
>> please point out where I said, hinted, suggested or implied that "the
>> camera is what makes a good photographer." I have said repeatedly that
>> photographers are technicians, and some are much better technicians than
>> others.
>
> Try reading your words in this very post..
>
> " Whoop de doo, you can press a shutter release."
>
> What did you mean by that?
Well, I did *not* mean that the ability to press a shutter release was the
only requirement for being a good photographer. But the fact is, many
excellent photos are taken by people who don't do anything more than that,
and have no particular technical skill. My sister for example loves to take
pictures, especially on her many travels, and has taken some superb ones.
But she has little or no interest in the technical aspects of photography.
For years she used point-and-shoot 35s, and now she uses a digital compact.
It suits her perfectly, and in fact she hasn't even gotten around to fully
exploring what her relatively simple little digicam can do.
She *loves* photography, albeit at a thoroughly non-technical level. There
are probably zillions of other people like her. I'm sure many of them get
great photos, literally doing nothing but pointing and shooting. Photos that
other people admire, but much more important, that please themselves. And
these photos make marvelous records, that years or decades later will bring
back fond memories. The people like my sister who take them would not in a
thousand years consider themselves artists, and they are not, no matter how
gorgeous their photos are. They are not even competent technicians. It
doesn't matter.
Photography is something that in my opinion should be appreciated for
itself, and not be pretended to be something it is not. That's pretty much
the bottom line of what I'm saying here.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> There are indeed many
>>>> painters who are very poor artists, but they are artists all the same,
>>>> no matter how inferior the quality of their work. Art is not
>>>> necessarily
>>>> beautiful, appealing, good, interesting or even competent.
>>>
>>> If it coveys no feeling, it's not art.
>>
>> Ridiculous.
>
>
> Again that's where you and I differ.
I'm afraid this brings us back to the same issue: You are saying something
is not art if it "conveys no feeling" to YOU, correct? Even if most others
regard it as art, you declare it to be non-art because it doesn't stir YOUR
feelings. Don't you see why this looks like you think the world revolves
around you?
Are you stirred, for example, by pre-Columbian art? If not, you don't think
it's art even if everyone else does? Or does it BECOME art in your opinion
because everyone else considers it art?
Do you see the problems this raises?
No to both, though both are very nice photographs. The first looks like
infrared, which always tends to be interesting.
>
>>
>>
>>> Their ability
>>> to hear what needs to be clipped, what level should be set where etc is
>>> what brings the recording to life.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why some photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious
>>>> fact, I do not know.
>>>
>>> Maybe because it IS insulting?
>>
>> Only to people whose pompous image of themselves as "artists" is
>> important
>> to them. No reasonable, realistic person would ever be insulted.
>
> So you saying " Whoop de doo, you can press a shutter release." to
> someone
> who just spent a couple of hours (or months?) studying a scene, waiting
> for
> the right light, choosing the right focus point and fstop to get their
> previsualised image recorded in a way that it can be recreated the way
> they
> saw it in their mind, isn't insulting in your opinion?
Everything you describe sounds like the work of a very careful, patient,
dedicated technician.
> And you call me
> "pompous" because you insulted me like this?
I have over the years met many amateur photographers who regarded themselves
as "artists," and as I've said I know these people tend to be easily
insulted in this connection. I'm sorry, but to me that is just pompous. I
did not mean to offend you, and I'm sorry that you were offended. The
alternative would have been for me to be less forthright, and just kept my
opinion to myself. Are your feelings more important than my honesty? You
decide.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> This is like argueing about "Bokeh", there
>>> are people who will not accept this even exists and it's pointless
>>> trying
>>> to get them to see that it does. You obviously believe the CAMERA is
>>> what
>>> creates the photograph
>>
>> It does, and you can easily prove this to yourself. Try making a
>> photograph without a camera. The camera, on the other hand, can be set to
>> make photographs without you.
>
> I never said every photograph is art now did I? You're the one who is
> saying ANYTHING drawn is considered art. How about blueprints, is that
> considered art to you?
Asked and answered above.
>
>
>>
>>> and the person behind the camera has nothing to do
>>> with the process.
>>
>> Again, this is something you're apparently hung up on but I never said.
>> Read through all my posts on this subject and see if you can find
>> anything
>> saying "the person behind the camera has nothing to do with the process."
>> I never said anything remotely like that.
>
> You just discount it as "pressing a button"..
I didn't say all photography was just "pressing a button." Again, I will say
that many, many excellent photos are made in just that way, by people with
scant technical skills but the ability to make good judgements about
selecting interesting, important or attractive subjects and framing them
well. After that it is just pressing a button. Today's digital compacts are
marvelous little machines. But they do not make their owners artists.
John Falstaff
It may indeed. I know what art is.
John Falstaff
> John Falstaff wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4drqpcF...@individual.net...
>>> John Falstaff wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4drb9nF...@individual.net...
>>>>> John Falstaff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's still
>>>>>> the camera that's doing the basic work, and a machine cannot be an
>>>>>> "artist" unless we are willing to do violence to the language.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't realize the skill set used was what defined an object as
>>>>> "ART". By
>>>>> your definition, does anything done using a paint brush = "ART"?
>>>>
>>>> Painting a wall, no.
>>>>
>>>> Painting a picture, yes.
>>>
>>> So how do you define "A picture"? Does a stripe on a wall make it become
>>> art
>>> by your narrow definition used here?
>>
>> I offered no definition, "narrow" or otherwise. You asked me about using
>> a
>> paintbrush. I don't think I would define "picture" differently from most
>> other people. Does "a stripe on a wall" really look like a picture to
>> you?
>
> http://www.paceprints.com/artistportfolio/artistportfolio.asp?aID=24&offset=4
That sort of thing is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
>
> So where do you draw the line here? I've seen "pictures" that are a single
> stripe across a canvas, so I guess it depends if it's done on a canvas, a
> wall or maybe who was holding the brush?
For people who think that sort of silliness is art, it does indeed depend on
who's doing it. I saw a program on TV a few years ago about a married couple
who were art collectors in Manhattan. They had a collection of junk that
they called "art" chiefly because it was produced by famous "artists." As
the interviewer and cameraman were leaving their apartment they stopped to
get a shot of a length of clothesline a foot or so long, tacked to the wall.
When asked about it, the couple proudly said that was a work by some famous
"artist" that was worth $7,000. They were very serious about it. $7,000 for
a piece of clothesline tacked to the wall. If any ordinary person did
exactly the same thing they'd say he was nuts, but a famous "artist" does it
and it's supposedly worth $7,000.
As I said before, to some silly people anything can be "art."
Stacey
Love it! :-) You created a wreck!
--
Stacey
Stacey
Funny that this sort of "nonsense" is in art museums all over the world. It
obviously speaks to someone as does this "pile of felt" I saw at the high
museum last week.
These copper plates didn't evoke much from me either.
http://www.high.org/collections/permanent/display_art.aspx?Query_Type=Area&All=1&Area=6&Record=7
>
>>
>> So where do you draw the line here? I've seen "pictures" that are a
>> single stripe across a canvas, so I guess it depends if it's done on a
>> canvas, a wall or maybe who was holding the brush?
>
> For people who think that sort of silliness is art, it does indeed depend
> on who's doing it.
It is a picture someone created with a brush. I thought that is what defines
art for you?
>
> As I said before, to some silly people anything can be "art."
So what defines when a painting is art? You said a child scribbling with
crayons is art but these painted stripes aren't?
Back to my original point, all photographs are not art, all paintings are
not art. It's highly subjective but it IS insulting to discount someone's
work because of the medium or the tools they used to created it.
--
Stacey
Stacey
You still have yet to define it, you contradicted yourself below saying
that this guys paintings were nonsense someone calls art yet a child
scribbling with crayons is?
--
Stacey
Stacey
>
> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I guess that's where we disagree... I think whether something is "art" or
>> not is a personal thing.
>
> So if you "feel something" it's art, and if not it's not?
That basically sums up my feelings on the subject. If it doesn't do anything
for me, = I = don't consider it art.
>
> Again, you seem to believe that the world revolves around you, and it's
> only you and your "feelings" that determine what's art.
Yet you can apply your definition as to what defines art and that's
different? Again why are the personal insults needed?
>
> Or do other peoples' "feelings" count too? If someone sees a rock and it
> causes him to have "feelings," the rock then becomes "art"?
>
If someone else was trying to creatively arrange the rocks etc to try to
invoke that feeling, yep that's art.
>>
>> It's- HOW- it was recorded that can make an image speak to someone or
>> not. Give 5 photographers a camera and stand them in front of the same
>> subject and you'll likely get 5 different interpretations of the same
>> thing that was in front of all of them.
>
> Probably five different pictures, yes. Different "interpretations" -- how
> would you possibly know this? You keep jumping to these conclusions.
I'm assuming that as "photographers" (as opposed to snap shooters) they
would be trying to put their spin on the subject and how they want to
represent what's in front of the camera.
>
>>
>>
>>> Whoop de doo,
>>> you can press a shutter release. Notify the media.
>>
>> There is a bit more to being a good photographer than pressing a shutter.
>> And you wonder why people get insulted? Someone could just as easily say
>> "Whoop de doo you can smear some paint around on a canvas" yet you would
>> consider it art just because of the medium used.
>
> Not necessarily, and in fact paint "smeared around on a canvas" doesn't do
> a thing for me. But that is getting into one of the gray areas I mentioned
> before.
So now if it doesn't do anything for you it isn't art? What would you call
"not doing anything for me" other than your feelings?
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> then you TRANSMITTED YOUR
>>>> FEELINGS which is what we should be trying to do.
>>>
>>> WHY is it "what we should be trying to do"? Who says so?
>>
>> If you're trying to create something meaningful with your photography you
>> should be.
>
> Who says I "should be"? Who has the right to tell me what I should or
> shouldn't be doing in my photography?
>
You have every right to be a snapshooter if you like and never try to
expressyourself through your photography. If you want to create
photographic art, you'll never do it if you don't let some of yourself show
though in your work. If you do this, you might change your opinion on this?
>
>> Otherwise you're right, it's just snapshooting..
>
> But "just snapshooting" is a perfectly proper and valid use of
> photography.
>
Sure it is, but IMHO it's like someone painting by numbers, it's not art.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Do you really think the world revolves around you, such that YOUR
>>> FEELINGS
>>> should be conveyed to everyone?
>>
>> Where did I say the world revolves around me?
>
> You've implied it several times now, e.g. just above:
>>>> then you TRANSMITTED YOUR
>>>> FEELINGS which is what we should be trying to do.
> Why do you think the world is waiting for this transmission of YOUR
> FEELINGS?
>
Yet it's OK for you to discount something because it "doesn't do anything
for me"?
>
>> And you don't think other
>> artists are trying to convey their emotions when they are creating works
>> of
>> art?
>
> Not usually. I've done a good deal of artwork, practically none of it
> "trying to convey [my] emotions." Most artists (in almost any medium) who
> talk like that are in fact just being pretentious --
Actually most good artists are doing this and it shows in their work. You
can easily see in AA's photographs his love for nature and how much he
cared our our planet. Other artists try to show other things in their work.
Poor artists are the ones who just "snap shoot" their subjects.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Recording what a person
>>>> looks like for future reference etc isn't "art" just like lots of
>>>> painting are not "art" either.
>>>
>>> If someone paints (or draws, or chisels) a picture, it's art.
>>
>> Again this is another point we disagree on. I've seen a BUNCH of painted,
>> drawn, chiseled things I'd never consider being art. How about
>> blueprints, is that considered art to you as well?
>
> No, that's a form of technical drawing. Too constrained to be art, since
> the draftsman cannot really create anything in it. Every line is dictated.
>
But what he is designing didn't exist before he created the drawing. Or do
you feel that architecture can't be an art form?
>>>
>>> Then you really do believe the world revolves around you, and is waiting
>>> breathlessly for you to "transmit your feelings" to all?
>>
>> So what in your opinion is the purpose of art? To just spend time
>> brushing paint onto a canvas without any of yourself being transmitted to
>> the work itself?
>
> The "purpose of art" varies a great deal. Much of it is commercial --
> magazine illustrations, advertising and that sort of thing, though
> increasingly these areas are being replaced by photography. (Which is to
> say, artists are being replaced by technicians.)
I don't consider much of that sort of ad work "art".
>
> Fine art of course is something else entirely, and there you do have the
> element of self-expression. Some artists have a powerful compulsion to
> paint. They aren't "trying to transmit their feelings" to anyone, they
> paint because they have this irresistible need to paint.
So why do you think they have this strong feeling and why does it show in
their work if they aren't trying to say something? You don't think say Dali
is trying to say anything with his work or invoke any sort of emotion from
the viewer?
> Self-expression
> does not necessarily have anything to do with communicating ones feelings
> or anything else to other people. The self-expression is its own end. The
> artist works to please himself. If others like his work, so much the
> better, but that isn't why he paints. If that's his goal, he's being false
> to himself.
Now that seems like a pretty pompous attitude to me..
>
> I believe that photography should be the same in that respect, even when
> it's not art (and it usually isn't).
SO now it "ussually" isn't?
> If you're doing commercial
> photography you have to please the client. If you're doing photography for
> yourself, I think you should do what pleases you.
Of course people do what pleases them for personal use, but I hope that
other people will react to what I've created.
> I don't know why you
> think you should "transmit your feelings" to other people via photography.
> I just don't understand that at all, and I doubt you can do it anyway.
> What "feelings" exactly do you think you're transmitting?
>
The feeling I had when I was there. Be it a cold rainly day in the
mountains, a hot summer night, the love of a dog etc..
>
>>
>>>
>>> Remarkable.
>>>
>>
>> Why are you starting all this personal insult stuff?
>
> I'm sorry. Your view of "art" does appear to be very subjective and
> self-centered, from what you yourself have said.
Everyone view of art is subjective.
>>
>> Same could be said for someone playing a musical instrument reading a
>> sheet
>> of music in front of them that someone else wrote. Who is the artist
>> there?
>> The person playing or the person who wrote it?
>
> That's probably another gray area, but offhand I would say "it depends."
You can't cover one whole medium with a "No way any of it is art" and then
use your own subjective feelings in another area.
> The person who wrote the music of course is its creator, and therefore the
> artist. The person who plays it may or may not be an artist in his own
> right. Does he simply follow the notes as written, or does he add
> something significant on his own? Some singers I consider artists, some
> are just competent singers. Again, this is an area where I think
> reasonable people may disagree.
So if people agree with your definition they are reasonable people?
>>
>> What did you mean by that?
>
> Well, I did *not* mean that the ability to press a shutter release was the
> only requirement for being a good photographer. But the fact is, many
> excellent photos are taken by people who don't do anything more than that,
> and have no particular technical skill. My sister for example loves to
> take pictures, especially on her many travels, and has taken some superb
> ones.
But they probably aren't anything unique, creative or that someone else
would buy to hang on their walls.
>
> She *loves* photography, albeit at a thoroughly non-technical level. There
> are probably zillions of other people like her. I'm sure many of them get
> great photos, literally doing nothing but pointing and shooting. Photos
> that other people admire, but much more important, that please themselves.
Snap shooters. Yes there are millions of them.
> And these photos make marvelous records, that years or decades later will
> bring back fond memories. The people like my sister who take them would
> not in a thousand years consider themselves artists, and they are not, no
> matter how gorgeous their photos are. They are not even competent
> technicians. It doesn't matter.
And no one else would consider them artists either, they are just recording
events with zero previsualization as to what they are producing.
>>>> If it coveys no feeling, it's not art.
>>>
>>> Ridiculous.
>>
>>
>> Again that's where you and I differ.
>
> I'm afraid this brings us back to the same issue: You are saying something
> is not art if it "conveys no feeling" to YOU, correct? Even if most others
> regard it as art, you declare it to be non-art because it doesn't stir
> YOUR feelings. Don't you see why this looks like you think the world
> revolves around you?
Reread what you wrote about grey areas because they don't do anything for
you..
>
> Are you stirred, for example, by pre-Columbian art?
Yep.
> If not, you don't
> think it's art even if everyone else does?
Do you think a canvas with a stripe is art even if everyone else does?
> Or does it BECOME art in your
> opinion because everyone else considers it art?
No.
>
> Do you see the problems this raises?
>
?? What problem?
>>
>> Where did I say anything about it "being pretty" defines it as a work of
>> art? Before I tell you how this was created, would you consider this art?
>>
>>
>> http://stephe_2.tripod.com/newpics4.htm
>>
>> Or this?
>>
>> http://stephe_2.tripod.com/newpics2.htm
>
> No to both, though both are very nice photographs. The first looks like
> infrared, which always tends to be interesting.
This was major computer editing on the first combining several scanned
photographs taken with different lenses. So at what point would it become
art? If I drew in some of it with a pencil rather than with PS paint tool
would it be?
>>
>> So you saying " Whoop de doo, you can press a shutter release." to
>> someone
>> who just spent a couple of hours (or months?) studying a scene, waiting
>> for
>> the right light, choosing the right focus point and fstop to get their
>> previsualised image recorded in a way that it can be recreated the way
>> they
>> saw it in their mind, isn't insulting in your opinion?
>
> Everything you describe sounds like the work of a very careful, patient,
> dedicated technician.
>
Yet a child scribbling with a pencil with no thought as to what they are
doing is "art" to you..
>
>> And you call me
>> "pompous" because you insulted me like this?
>
> I have over the years met many amateur photographers who regarded
> themselves as "artists," and as I've said I know these people tend to be
> easily insulted in this connection.
The people you descriubed eariler who are snapshooters are not artists just
as paint by numbers painters aren't.
>>
>> You just discount it as "pressing a button"..
>
> I didn't say all photography was just "pressing a button." Again, I will
> say that many, many excellent photos are made in just that way, by people
> with scant technical skills but the ability to make good judgements about
> selecting interesting, important or attractive subjects and framing them
> well.
The difference is you see nothing special about the ability to do this or
the thought processes involved and claim the camera is doing everything.
> After that it is just pressing a button. Today's digital compacts
> are marvelous little machines. But they do not make their owners artists.
Of course they don't, just as the modern looms don't make the people using
them artists either by default. It HOW they use these tools that determines
J. Clarke
A part of the problem here is that there seems to be an unstated assumption
that the photographer just shoots targets of opportunity, when in fact some
have a specific image in mind that they want to create and they actively
seek out the conditions which allow them to create it. In this regard
photography is _more_ difficult because the photographer doesn't have
complete control of the image even working in the studio. He's always
constrained by physics--if he wants "unnatural" lighting or perspective for
example, he has to find a way to make it happen, or at least appear to
happen from the viewpoint of the lens, in the real world.
But I have found that anyone who sets himself up as the arbiter of what
constitutes "art" is generally a "silly person".
John Falstaff
> John Falstaff wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>>
>>> I guess that's where we disagree... I think whether something is "art"
>>> or
>>> not is a personal thing.
>>
>> So if you "feel something" it's art, and if not it's not?
>
> That basically sums up my feelings on the subject. If it doesn't do
> anything
> for me, = I = don't consider it art.
>
>>
>> Again, you seem to believe that the world revolves around you, and it's
>> only you and your "feelings" that determine what's art.
>
> Yet you can apply your definition as to what defines art and that's
> different? Again why are the personal insults needed?
How can it be a "personal insult" when you've just essentially agreed with
what I'm saying?
>
>>
>> Or do other peoples' "feelings" count too? If someone sees a rock and it
>> causes him to have "feelings," the rock then becomes "art"?
>>
>
> If someone else was trying to creatively arrange the rocks etc to try to
> invoke that feeling, yep that's art.
Sure, I agree. But that isn't what I posited -- only "if someone sees a rock
and it causes him to have 'feelings.'"
>
>
>>>
>>> It's- HOW- it was recorded that can make an image speak to someone or
>>> not. Give 5 photographers a camera and stand them in front of the same
>>> subject and you'll likely get 5 different interpretations of the same
>>> thing that was in front of all of them.
>>
>> Probably five different pictures, yes. Different "interpretations" -- how
>> would you possibly know this? You keep jumping to these conclusions.
>
> I'm assuming
Ah, assuming . . .
> that as "photographers" (as opposed to snap shooters) they
> would be trying to put their spin on the subject and how they want to
> represent what's in front of the camera.
This is your assumption, which as far as I can see has no basis in fact. And
why "as opposed to snap shooters" anyway? Are snapshooters less than human,
such that they all act and think machine-like and in totally predictable
ways? Again, this sounds like arrogance to me. Really, doesn't it to you?
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Whoop de doo,
>>>> you can press a shutter release. Notify the media.
>>>
>>> There is a bit more to being a good photographer than pressing a
>>> shutter.
>>> And you wonder why people get insulted? Someone could just as easily say
>>> "Whoop de doo you can smear some paint around on a canvas" yet you would
>>> consider it art just because of the medium used.
>>
>> Not necessarily, and in fact paint "smeared around on a canvas" doesn't
>> do
>> a thing for me. But that is getting into one of the gray areas I
>> mentioned
>> before.
>
> So now if it doesn't do anything for you it isn't art?
Not what I said. YOU'RE the one who says it has to do something for you in
order to be art. I'VE been saying that art is art, whether it does anything
for me or not.
> What would you call
> "not doing anything for me" other than your feelings?
I agree, but again, you've misinterpreted what I said.
>>>>
>>>>> then you TRANSMITTED YOUR
>>>>> FEELINGS which is what we should be trying to do.
>>>>
>>>> WHY is it "what we should be trying to do"? Who says so?
>>>
>>> If you're trying to create something meaningful with your photography
>>> you
>>> should be.
>>
>> Who says I "should be"? Who has the right to tell me what I should or
>> shouldn't be doing in my photography?
>>
>
> You have every right to be a snapshooter if you like and never try to
> expressyourself through your photography.
Again, that's not what I said. But I will say that as a means of
self-expression, photography is a poor avenue compared to art. This is
because the photographer (generally speaking) doesn't *create* anything --
he records something. The something that he records may indeed be very
appealing, an image that pleases him and that other people will want to look
at too. None of that makes it art. People love to look at pictures, and I
will go so far as to say that a lot more people would rather look at
pictures than look at art for the sake of its being art. Bring out some
photos and invariably people will crowd around to see them.
Is it *possible* to be creative in photography? Sure. But this means going
well beyond the mere recording of an image, and it doesn't matter whether
it's an improvement on the original or not -- it only matters that the image
can be fairly said to be *created* by the person making it, rather than
merely recorded.
> If you want to create
> photographic art,
I don't, as a general rule. I want to make the best photographs I can. As
for art, I've been there and done that. I still enjoy fine art, very much in
fact, but I don't confuse it with photography. Good photography is a very
satisfying end in itself.
> you'll never do it if you don't let some of yourself show
> though in your work. If you do this, you might change your opinion on
> this?
Why is it important to you to "let some of yourself show though in your
work"? You can saying these things that indicate you think the world
revolves around YOU, but when I point this out you say I'm insulting you.
Why isn't the important thing just to do good work? Why are you so wrapped
up in self-importance?
And how do you think you "show though in your work" anyway?
>
>>
>>> Otherwise you're right, it's just snapshooting..
>>
>> But "just snapshooting" is a perfectly proper and valid use of
>> photography.
>>
>
> Sure it is, but IMHO it's like someone painting by numbers, it's not art.
No, it's not at all "like someone painting by numbers." The snapshooter
still selects his subject and, at the very least, chooses his framing of it.
Agreed, of course, "it's not art." Neither is most serious photography.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think the world revolves around you, such that YOUR
>>>> FEELINGS
>>>> should be conveyed to everyone?
>>>
>>> Where did I say the world revolves around me?
>>
>> You've implied it several times now, e.g. just above:
>>>>> then you TRANSMITTED YOUR
>>>>> FEELINGS which is what we should be trying to do.
>> Why do you think the world is waiting for this transmission of YOUR
>> FEELINGS?
>>
>
> Yet it's OK for you to discount something because it "doesn't do anything
> for me"?
I don't deny that art is art just because it "doesn't do anything for me"
whereas you do, and have said so yourself.
>
>>
>>> And you don't think other
>>> artists are trying to convey their emotions when they are creating works
>>> of
>>> art?
>>
>> Not usually. I've done a good deal of artwork, practically none of it
>> "trying to convey [my] emotions." Most artists (in almost any medium) who
>> talk like that are in fact just being pretentious --
>
> Actually most good artists are doing this and it shows in their work. You
> can easily see in AA's photographs his love for nature and how much he
> cared our our planet.
Of course he loved nature and it "show[ed] in [his] work" by his choice of
subject. Exactly the same principle would apply to any snapshooter: if a
fellow spent years taking snapshots of old cars, and nothing else but old
cars, that would show he had a love of old cars.
As for Adams, your saying "and how much he cared our our planet" is pure
speculation on your part. That (assuming such "care" existed) doesn't show
in his photographs; it's something you want to believe about him and/or have
read about him. Another assumption. Your imagination carries you beyond what
you see in front of you. That's OK too, provided you recognize that it is
your imagination and not necessarily connected to reality.
> Other artists try to show other things in their work.
> Poor artists are the ones who just "snap shoot" their subjects.
Poor artists are those who don't do good work, which is always to some
degree a matter of opinion.
Some photographers on the other hand do excellent work by grabbing shots on
the spur of the moment (HCB's "decisive moments" for example), which makes
it hard to define "snapshot" in any substantive way. Without a doubt there
are very good snapshooters just as there are poor ones. The fact that you
use the term only derisively suggests again a certain pomposity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Recording what a person
>>>>> looks like for future reference etc isn't "art" just like lots of
>>>>> painting are not "art" either.
>>>>
>>>> If someone paints (or draws, or chisels) a picture, it's art.
>>>
>>> Again this is another point we disagree on. I've seen a BUNCH of
>>> painted,
>>> drawn, chiseled things I'd never consider being art. How about
>>> blueprints, is that considered art to you as well?
>>
>> No, that's a form of technical drawing. Too constrained to be art, since
>> the draftsman cannot really create anything in it. Every line is
>> dictated.
>>
>
> But what he is designing didn't exist before he created the drawing. Or do
> you feel that architecture can't be an art form?
Architecture can be an art form. Blueprints are made after the design; they
are not the original design.
>
>>>>
>>>> Then you really do believe the world revolves around you, and is
>>>> waiting
>>>> breathlessly for you to "transmit your feelings" to all?
>>>
>>> So what in your opinion is the purpose of art? To just spend time
>>> brushing paint onto a canvas without any of yourself being transmitted
>>> to
>>> the work itself?
>>
>> The "purpose of art" varies a great deal. Much of it is commercial --
>> magazine illustrations, advertising and that sort of thing, though
>> increasingly these areas are being replaced by photography. (Which is to
>> say, artists are being replaced by technicians.)
>
> I don't consider much of that sort of ad work "art".
Commercial art is indeed art, whether you consider it so or not.
>
>>
>> Fine art of course is something else entirely, and there you do have the
>> element of self-expression. Some artists have a powerful compulsion to
>> paint. They aren't "trying to transmit their feelings" to anyone, they
>> paint because they have this irresistible need to paint.
>
> So why do you think they have this strong feeling and why does it show in
> their work if they aren't trying to say something? You don't think say
> Dali
> is trying to say anything with his work or invoke any sort of emotion from
> the viewer?
>
>> Self-expression
>> does not necessarily have anything to do with communicating ones feelings
>> or anything else to other people. The self-expression is its own end. The
>> artist works to please himself. If others like his work, so much the
>> better, but that isn't why he paints. If that's his goal, he's being
>> false
>> to himself.
>
> Now that seems like a pretty pompous attitude to me..
In what way "pompous"? Explain.
>
>
>>
>> I believe that photography should be the same in that respect, even when
>> it's not art (and it usually isn't).
>
> SO now it "ussually" isn't?
It usually isn't. Why the quotes around "usually"?
>
>> If you're doing commercial
>> photography you have to please the client. If you're doing photography
>> for
>> yourself, I think you should do what pleases you.
>
> Of course people do what pleases them for personal use, but I hope that
> other people will react to what I've created.
>
>> I don't know why you
>> think you should "transmit your feelings" to other people via
>> photography.
>> I just don't understand that at all, and I doubt you can do it anyway.
>> What "feelings" exactly do you think you're transmitting?
>>
>
> The feeling I had when I was there.
No one knows what feeling you had when you were there. No one can know.
Someone with as much imagination as you have may *think* he knows, just as
you may think you know what Ansel Adams' feelings were when he took a
photograph. If this is really that important to you (I can't imagine why),
enjoy it, but it's still all in your imagination.
> Be it a cold rainly day in the
> mountains, a hot summer night, the love of a dog etc..
Photos can certainly show such things, and evoke more or less predictable
feelings in other people. This has nothing to do with "transmitting your
feelings," only with making photos that will have a fairly predictable
effect. Snapshots can do exactly the same things, and often do.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Remarkable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you starting all this personal insult stuff?
>>
>> I'm sorry. Your view of "art" does appear to be very subjective and
>> self-centered, from what you yourself have said.
>
> Everyone view of art is subjective.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Same could be said for someone playing a musical instrument reading a
>>> sheet
>>> of music in front of them that someone else wrote. Who is the artist
>>> there?
>>> The person playing or the person who wrote it?
>>
>> That's probably another gray area, but offhand I would say "it depends."
>
> You can't cover one whole medium with a "No way any of it is art"
Who ever said that? Not I, certainly.
> and then
> use your own subjective feelings in another area.
>
>> The person who wrote the music of course is its creator, and therefore
>> the
>> artist. The person who plays it may or may not be an artist in his own
>> right. Does he simply follow the notes as written, or does he add
>> something significant on his own? Some singers I consider artists, some
>> are just competent singers. Again, this is an area where I think
>> reasonable people may disagree.
>
> So if people agree with your definition they are reasonable people?
Are you just looking for an argument? Read it again. I said, "this is an
area where I think reasonable people may disagree."
>
>
>>>
>>> What did you mean by that?
>>
>> Well, I did *not* mean that the ability to press a shutter release was
>> the
>> only requirement for being a good photographer. But the fact is, many
>> excellent photos are taken by people who don't do anything more than
>> that,
>> and have no particular technical skill. My sister for example loves to
>> take pictures, especially on her many travels, and has taken some superb
>> ones.
>
> But they probably aren't anything unique, creative or that someone else
> would buy to hang on their walls.
Nor are they made for that purpose. Do you make photographs only because you
hope "someone else would buy [them] to hang on their walls"? Is that your
idea of "art" -- pure commercialism?
>
>>
>> She *loves* photography, albeit at a thoroughly non-technical level.
>> There
>> are probably zillions of other people like her. I'm sure many of them get
>> great photos, literally doing nothing but pointing and shooting. Photos
>> that other people admire, but much more important, that please
>> themselves.
>
> Snap shooters. Yes there are millions of them.
Indeed, and they sometimes make great photographs.
>
>> And these photos make marvelous records, that years or decades later will
>> bring back fond memories. The people like my sister who take them would
>> not in a thousand years consider themselves artists, and they are not, no
>> matter how gorgeous their photos are. They are not even competent
>> technicians. It doesn't matter.
>
> And no one else would consider them artists either, they are just
> recording
> events with zero previsualization as to what they are producing.
Nonsense; of course they have "previsualization as to what they are
producing" -- they see the subject, make a visual judgement and frame it
right there on the monitor. What sort of distinction are you trying to make?
They are capturing the moment. That is their sole purpose.
>
>>>>> If it coveys no feeling, it's not art.
>>>>
>>>> Ridiculous.
>>>
>>>
>>> Again that's where you and I differ.
>>
>> I'm afraid this brings us back to the same issue: You are saying
>> something
>> is not art if it "conveys no feeling" to YOU, correct? Even if most
>> others
>> regard it as art, you declare it to be non-art because it doesn't stir
>> YOUR feelings. Don't you see why this looks like you think the world
>> revolves around you?
>
>
> Reread what you wrote about grey areas because they don't do anything for
> you..
>
>
>>
>> Are you stirred, for example, by pre-Columbian art?
>
> Yep.
What "feelings" does it "transmit" to you?
>
>> If not, you don't
>> think it's art even if everyone else does?
>
> Do you think a canvas with a stripe is art even if everyone else does?
Too hypothetical: everyone else *doesn't*. But anyway what I think is it's a
gray area. I just don't relate to that kind of art. Those who say it is art
may be sincere, and see something in it that I don't. Or they may be
pretentious phonies, as the artist may be. To some degree, if he sets out to
create a work of art, that work is, ipso facto, art.
Let me give you an example of what I mean by pretentious phonies.
The painting instructor at my art school was one of the compulsive painters
I've mentioned before. What he painted was non-objective art, or which many
people mistakenly call "abstract" art. He had won some important prizes, at
least one National Academy prize as I recall, and had a one-man show of his
work.
Now at the gallery where this show was held, he had to supply titles for
each painting. It was a rule. He said, "OK, we'll call this one Number One,
this one Number Two, . . ." But the gallery director said No, no, they had
to be actual titles, not numbers.
He objected that because the paintings were NON-OBJECTIVE they had no actual
subjects and so couldn't very well have titles. Nevertheless, the rule could
not be broken. So he simply invented the most ridiculous titles he could
think of, nothing at all to do with the paintings themselves but just to
satisfy the rule. One painting he titled "Two Thistles Floating Down a
Stream in February." There was absolutely nothing in the painting that had
anything to do with thistles, a stream or February.
So imagine his chagrin when at the show, walking around behind people to
hear what they were saying about his work (as artists always do at such
shows), he overheard one lady saying to another, "My! Isn't this painting
marvelous! Doesn't it just perfectly capture the VERY ESSENCE of two
thistles floating down a stream in February!"
(more anon)
John Falstaff
It is indeed.
> It
> obviously speaks to someone as does this "pile of felt" I saw at the high
> museum last week.
It may "speak to someone" or it may not, but see my other post regarding Two
Thistles Floating Down a Stream in February.
>
> http://www.high.org/collections/permanent/display_art.aspx?Query_Type=Area&All=1&Area=6&Page=2&Record=11
>
> These copper plates didn't evoke much from me either.
>
> http://www.high.org/collections/permanent/display_art.aspx?Query_Type=Area&All=1&Area=6&Record=7
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> So where do you draw the line here? I've seen "pictures" that are a
>>> single stripe across a canvas, so I guess it depends if it's done on a
>>> canvas, a wall or maybe who was holding the brush?
>>
>> For people who think that sort of silliness is art, it does indeed depend
>> on who's doing it.
>
> It is a picture someone created with a brush. I thought that is what
> defines
> art for you?
A "picture someone created with a brush" (or pen, or pencil, or crayon,
etc.) is indeed art. Whether stripes alone constitute "a picture" is what
I'm questioning. They don't for me. They may for others, so it's a gray area
as far as I'm concerned.
You apparently want to have everything black and white, no shades of gray,
everything either IS or it ISN"T, like pregnancy. I can't help you with
that.
>
>>
>> As I said before, to some silly people anything can be "art."
>
> So what defines when a painting is art? You said a child scribbling with
> crayons is art
Not "scribbling" -- scribbling isn't art, though with some of the junk
presented as art it wouldn't much surprise to see scribbling presented as
art too. Trying to draw a picture is art, even if done by a child with
crayons. The intent is what matters.
> but these painted stripes aren't?
I didn't say it is or is not art. If it's done with the intention of
creating art then it is, ipso facto, art. It's not art that I can relate to.
>
> Back to my original point, all photographs are not art,
Relatively few are, in fact. There are many excellent photos that aren't art
and surely don't need to be to have value. Not being art doesn't diminish
them in any way.
> all paintings are
> not art.
All paintings done with the intention of creating art (as opposed to
painting houses, etc.) are art of some sort. It may not be art that I can
relate to, and it may just be something only painted to gull the foolish
into accepting it as art -- which I suppose is still art in its own way.
> It's highly subjective but it IS insulting to discount someone's
> work because of the medium or the tools they used to created it.
I don't believe it's "discounting" anything just by saying it's not art.
This appears to be the main difference between us. You think a photograph
has to be art in order to have some degree of value that will satisfy you. I
don't. As far as I'm concerned, an excellent photograph stands on its own
merits and doesn't have to pretend to be something it isn't. Simple as that.
Stacey
>
> A part of the problem here is that there seems to be an unstated
> assumption that the photographer just shoots targets of opportunity, when
> in fact some have a specific image in mind that they want to create and
> they actively
> seek out the conditions which allow them to create it.
Exactly.
--
Stacey
Stacey
>
> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> Again, you seem to believe that the world revolves around you, and it's
>>> only you and your "feelings" that determine what's art.
>>
>> Yet you can apply your definition as to what defines art and that's
>> different? Again why are the personal insults needed?
>
> How can it be a "personal insult" when you've just essentially agreed with
> what I'm saying?
>
Because I first: haven't proclaimed a whole medium can't be "art" no matter
what was created using it. Also you feel it's fine to define art as you see
fit, be if someone else has a different opinion, then they must think the
"world revolves around them". Both are insulting and the later is
PERSONALLY insulting.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Or do other peoples' "feelings" count too? If someone sees a rock and it
>>> causes him to have "feelings," the rock then becomes "art"?
>>>
>>
>> If someone else was trying to creatively arrange the rocks etc to try to
>> invoke that feeling, yep that's art.
>
> Sure, I agree. But that isn't what I posited -- only "if someone sees a
> rock and it causes him to have 'feelings.'"
>
Back to what I said, if there was no human involved trying to convey THEIR
feelings through these rocks, no it's not art just looking at a rock
sitting there naturally. The key here is a HUMAN was trying to say
something for it to become art.
>>> Probably five different pictures, yes. Different "interpretations" --
>>> how would you possibly know this? You keep jumping to these conclusions.
>>
>> I'm assuming
>
> Ah, assuming . . .
Yes assuming these are PHOTOGRAPHERS (not snap shooters) are trying to
express themselves through this medium. If these are snap shooters, which
it appears you are, nothing they create with any medium could ever be art!
The deal is for me the artist puts something of himself into the work.
>
>
>> that as "photographers" (as opposed to snap shooters) they
>> would be trying to put their spin on the subject and how they want to
>> represent what's in front of the camera.
>
> This is your assumption, which as far as I can see has no basis in fact.
> And why "as opposed to snap shooters" anyway? Are snapshooters less than
> human,
They aren't artists, just as a person using a paint by numbers set isn't.
Nor is a person dragging a bow across a violin making white noise. Someone
can still be very human without being an artist which is most of the
population...
> such that they all act and think machine-like and in totally
> predictable ways? Again, this sounds like arrogance to me. Really, doesn't
> it to you?
Most snapshooters do take predictably bad photographs. They might luck onto
something interesting, but if they didn't intend for it to come out the way
it did, how could they be an expression of their thoughts and/or feelings?
>> So now if it doesn't do anything for you it isn't art?
>
> Not what I said. YOU'RE the one who says it has to do something for you in
> order to be art. I'VE been saying that art is art, whether it does
> anything for me or not.
>
Actually you said these are a "gray area" in your opinion.
>
>
>> What would you call
>> "not doing anything for me" other than your feelings?
>
> I agree, but again, you've misinterpreted what I said.
>
So what does calling certain art "a gray area" or "Some people call anything
art" mean when you say it?
>> You have every right to be a snapshooter if you like and never try to
>> expressyourself through your photography.
>
> Again, that's not what I said. But I will say that as a means of
> self-expression, photography is a poor avenue compared to art.
Could be because it's not something you've mastered and it's why you can't
express yourself through this medium? There are sculptors would would say
the same thing about playing the violin.
> This is
> because the photographer (generally speaking) doesn't *create* anything --
> he records something.
Then I could only advise you find some other outlet if you feel this way.
Seems like you're wasting your time if you truly feel limited by it as you
assume EVERYONE is!
I'm done trying to convince you as you seem to be totally immobile in your
position, which is opposed to what most people think about photography
being considered an art form. I do find it comical you ask me if I discount
something as art that the general public considers art, yet you are doing
exactly that saying that fine art photography can't exist. I might have
considered discussing this further, but the whole "You think the world
revolves around you" BS you keep repeating has become tiring...
Again I sugest you give up photography is you really feel the way you posted
as you'll never be able to do anything useful with it given the way you've
limited yourself by these feelings.
--
Stacey
Philip Homburg
John Falstaff <n...@home.today> wrote:
>Contrariwise, a photograph is not art just because it's beautiful or
>appealing, or even evokes "feelings" in the viewer. Many kinds of recordings
>evoke feelings. Recordings of songs often do, to take the obvious example.
>technician, not an artist, even if he made a much better recording than
>someone else might have.
>
>more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone lacking those
>skills. It's not a trivial thing to be an expert technician, and no reason
>know.
I don't think it is very hard to come up with a set of criteria that sort
of makes it possible to determine whether a photograph is art or not.
I think that first step is that there has to be some kind of communication.
It can be intentional (the photographer tries to show the viewers something).
But, I think that picture can get a meaning of its own, beyond what the
maker set out to do.
The second step is that there has to be no practical use for the picture.
(Or the picture has be far enough removed from its original context).
Finally, the actions of the photographer have to be more than just
recording what was there.
I think that comparing a photo to a recording can make things clear. If the
recording is essentially that same as what people heard who where there
when the recording was made (or when the piece was rehearsed) than the art is
in the performance and not in the recording.
However, it also possible that final result is much more that the sum
of the parts (Roger Water's Amused to Death is a good example). In that
case a large part of the art is created in the studio and is not
simply a registration of what was already there.
With photography there are many ways to manipulate reality. Extreme lenses
(fish-eye), the use of depth of field, creative use of film, printing,
light, etc. And in many cases the photographer acts as a director to make
sure that the people/objects in front of his camera are where they need to
be.
However, in some case there can be discussion about whether a certain
photograph is just a recording or not.
I think a reasonable test is whether the photo shows the same thing that
was seen / would be remembered by somebody who was there and acted
independently of the photographer.
I think that in many cases, being selective is being creative. A lot of
photos show the world in different ways. By being selective you can tell
people something about the world around them, something they do not see on
their own. And that goes beyond merely recording what was already there.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Don F
news:avhj78e5en9l0mqmp4399qrim4@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
Great philosophers have debated the definition of what art is and the
debate continues today. I notice that the words "I think" are imbedded in
your responses which makes what you say reasonable.
You *offer* your ideas which may be accepted by those who find them useful
or may not be accepted by others who do not agree.
I find it rather presumptuous for any Usenet poster to proclaim to the
world that he/she has the definitive answer to a highly debatable subject.
Don
Philip Homburg
Don F <nob...@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote:
> Great philosophers have debated the definition of what art is and the
>debate continues today.
Well, great philosophers have debated many subjects way beyond what most
people care for.
>I notice that the words "I think" are imbedded in
>your responses which makes what you say reasonable.
> You *offer* your ideas which may be accepted by those who find them useful
>or may not be accepted by others who do not agree.
I guess that that is sort of the point of a discussion. Sometimes a debate
can be ended by providing facts that the other side was not aware of.
Most of the times, debates are about the interpretation of the facts.
> I find it rather presumptuous for any Usenet poster to proclaim to the
>world that he/she has the definitive answer to a highly debatable subject.
If there is a definitive answer, just provide a textbook reference.
Part of the usenet culture is the implicit assumption that a posting
reflects that authors opinion. But sometimes it doesn't hurt to add some
explicit 'in my opinion' qualifiers.
John Falstaff
"Philip Homburg" <phi...@ue.aioy.eu> wrote in message
news:avhj78e5en9l0mqmp4399qrim4@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> John Falstaff <n...@home.today> wrote:
>>Contrariwise, a photograph is not art just because it's beautiful or
>>appealing, or even evokes "feelings" in the viewer. Many kinds of
>>recordings
>>evoke feelings. Recordings of songs often do, to take the obvious example.
>>The singer may have been an artist but the person making the recording was
>>a
>>technician, not an artist, even if he made a much better recording than
>>someone else might have.
>>
>>Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be
>>much
>>more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone lacking
>>those
>>skills. It's not a trivial thing to be an expert technician, and no reason
>>for an accomplished technician to imagine he's an artist. Why some
>>photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious fact, I do
>>not
>>know.
>
> I don't think it is very hard to come up with a set of criteria that sort
> of makes it possible to determine whether a photograph is art or not.
You're probably right, but as I think we have already seen here, no set of
criteria is likely to satisfy everyone. Many will continue to believe a
beautiful photograph is "art," even if it is just a technically good
photographic record of a beautiful subject -- which is not art in and of
itself.
All words are (necessarily) defined; the problem with "art" is that it has
many definitions that have little or nothing to do with one another. One may
speak of the art of
poker playing
hamburger cooking
gamesmanship
political spin
motorcycle maintenance (remember the book?)
varmint hunting
. . . and so on, for a thousand other kinds of possible activity, without
misusing the word "art."
But when someone speaks of a photograph as "art," I think it is safe to say
he means "art" more in the way of fine art than, say, hamburger cooking.
>
> I think that first step is that there has to be some kind of
> communication.
> It can be intentional (the photographer tries to show the viewers
> something).
> But, I think that picture can get a meaning of its own, beyond what the
> maker set out to do.
That confuses the issue. Art requires an artist (even if the "art" is only
hamburger cooking). If the "picture can get a meaning of its own, beyond
what the maker set out to do," then whatever that "meaning" is it certainly
isn't art.
Lots of things in nature are beautiful and may evoke feelings, but they are
not art. Whether they have any "meaning" in and of themselves is sort of a
metaphysical question. Does a pretty flower have "meaning"? Well, yes, it
may, depending on the circumstances. If it's offered to a girl as a gift,
the object and the act of giving it obviously do have meaning. But that's a
situational meaning rather than an intrinsic or universal one. The flower
may have an entirely different meaning to a horticulturalist than to someone
uninterested in that.
>
> The second step is that there has to be no practical use for the picture.
> (Or the picture has be far enough removed from its original context).
Why?
>
> Finally, the actions of the photographer have to be more than just
> recording what was there.
Absolutely. That is what takes us into this area of argument. It's the "more
than just . . ." part that's troublesome.
>
> I think that comparing a photo to a recording can make things clear. If
> the
> recording is essentially that same as what people heard who where there
> when the recording was made (or when the piece was rehearsed) than the art
> is
> in the performance and not in the recording.
Just so.
>
> However, it also possible that final result is much more that the sum
> of the parts (Roger Water's Amused to Death is a good example). In that
> case a large part of the art is created in the studio and is not
> simply a registration of what was already there.
>
> With photography there are many ways to manipulate reality. Extreme lenses
> (fish-eye), the use of depth of field, creative use of film, printing,
> light, etc.
The problem there is that you've now gotten into *selection* rather than
creation. Changing focal length, depth of field, etc., are decisions made by
a technician, not the work of an artist. The photographer isn't *creating*
anything at all by those choices. It's analogous to a person in a museum who
changes his position so that he can look at a statue in a certain way, such
that the statue has a certain relationship to the light, the background and
other objects. That may indeed suggest an artistic *sensibility* but it is
not art in itself, any more than an art critic is an artist.
> And in many cases the photographer acts as a director to make
> sure that the people/objects in front of his camera are where they need to
> be.
There you have a point. To the extent that the photographer *arranges*
things in the photograph, he is being creative at least to some small degree
and therefore the resulting photograph is in some part his work, not merely
a recording. This is a gray area, one of many (as I've alluded to). An
artist doing a still life arranges objects too. The mere arrangement is not
in itself a work of art, but is part of that work.
>
> However, in some case there can be discussion about whether a certain
> photograph is just a recording or not.
>
> I think a reasonable test is whether the photo shows the same thing that
> was seen / would be remembered by somebody who was there and acted
> independently of the photographer.
>
> I think that in many cases, being selective is being creative.
There we disagree. Is an art critic an artist? Motion pictures are art, but
is a movie critic an artist?
Again, this speaking more of artistic sensibility and judgement, than of art
itself. Many people have such sensibility and judgement but cannot create
the art themselves. Such people might (or might not) make good
photographers, their sensibilities helping them to make better selections of
focal length, position, etc. Thus they might be much better technicians than
people lacking those kinds of judgement.
> A lot of
> photos show the world in different ways. By being selective you can tell
> people something about the world around them, something they do not see on
> their own. And that goes beyond merely recording what was already there.
No, I would say it shows recording with better than average judgement and
sensibility. Still not *created* by the photographer, ergo still not art.
John Falstaff
> John Falstaff wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> Again, you seem to believe that the world revolves around you, and it's
>>>> only you and your "feelings" that determine what's art.
>>>
>>> Yet you can apply your definition as to what defines art and that's
>>> different? Again why are the personal insults needed?
>>
>> How can it be a "personal insult" when you've just essentially agreed
>> with
>> what I'm saying?
>>
>
> Because I first: haven't proclaimed a whole medium can't be "art" no
> matter
> what was created using it.
What relevance has this to what we're talking about?
> Also you feel it's fine to define art as you see
> fit, be if someone else has a different opinion, then they must think the
> "world revolves around them". Both are insulting and the later is
> PERSONALLY insulting.
I still have no idea why you find this "insulting." You're the one who set
yourself up as the arbiter of what is art (if it gives you "feelings") or
isn't art (if it doesn't). If that doesn't indicate that you think the world
revolves around you, I would sure like to know what the world revolving
around you might look like.
Far from "defin[ing] art as [I] see fit," all I have really said about
defining art is that it must be the *creation* of the artist -- as opposed
to the mere recording of something that was there. There are many kinds of
art that I don't relate to, I don't think much of, and give me no "feelings"
whatever (except in some cases the strong feeling that the artist is putting
us on, e.g. the clothesline piece tacked to a wall). I still accept that
these things are art of some kind, even if I regard it as junk.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or do other peoples' "feelings" count too? If someone sees a rock and
>>>> it
>>>> causes him to have "feelings," the rock then becomes "art"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If someone else was trying to creatively arrange the rocks etc to try to
>>> invoke that feeling, yep that's art.
>>
>> Sure, I agree. But that isn't what I posited -- only "if someone sees a
>> rock and it causes him to have 'feelings.'"
>>
>
> Back to what I said, if there was no human involved trying to convey THEIR
> feelings through these rocks, no it's not art just looking at a rock
> sitting there naturally. The key here is a HUMAN was trying to say
> something for it to become art.
What is the hypothetical human trying to say about the hypothetical rock,
for example? That it's a really nice-looking rock? OK, if he's recorded an
image of a really nice-looking rock then perhaps other people will like it
too and enjoy looking at it. How is that art?
>
>
>>>> Probably five different pictures, yes. Different "interpretations" --
>>>> how would you possibly know this? You keep jumping to these
>>>> conclusions.
>>>
>>> I'm assuming
>>
>> Ah, assuming . . .
>
> Yes assuming these are PHOTOGRAPHERS (not snap shooters) are trying to
> express themselves through this medium. If these are snap shooters, which
> it appears you are, nothing they create with any medium could ever be art!
> The deal is for me the artist puts something of himself into the work.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> that as "photographers" (as opposed to snap shooters) they
>>> would be trying to put their spin on the subject and how they want to
>>> represent what's in front of the camera.
>>
>> This is your assumption, which as far as I can see has no basis in fact.
>> And why "as opposed to snap shooters" anyway? Are snapshooters less than
>> human,
>
> They aren't artists,
How do you know?
> just as a person using a paint by numbers set isn't.
Taking snapshots isn't like painting by numbers. It might be, if the camera
came with instructions telling the photographer where to stand, where to
point the camera, etc., but they don't. The snapshooter still makes
selections of subject, framing, etc., just as the more serious photographer
does. He just doesn't devote as much time and thought to it.
> Nor is a person dragging a bow across a violin making white noise. Someone
> can still be very human without being an artist which is most of the
> population...
>
>
>> such that they all act and think machine-like and in totally
>> predictable ways? Again, this sounds like arrogance to me. Really,
>> doesn't
>> it to you?
>
> Most snapshooters do take predictably bad photographs.
Not necessarily true. It's true they often don't do things the way I'd have
done them in the same situation, and looking at snapshots I often think "Why
didn't she ---" or "If only she'd ---," but that doesn't make the photos
"bad."
You seem to be stuck on the idea that photographs must be "art" in order to
have value. That's simply not true. For most people who care about their
photographs, especially as they get older, photographs are important and
valuable repositories of fond memories, instantly accessible. Perhaps you
aren't old enough to realize that yet. Those photos that are of technical
excellence are of course much better for this purpose than those that are
indifferent or poor, but even the poor ones gain great value as the years go
by.
Here's a little (if necessarily long-term) experiment for you, and more than
just an experiment, some good advice:
Take as many of your pretend-"art" photographs as you like, but also take
some snapshots of your family, friends, pets, cars, neighborhood, etc.
Save them all. Look at them again 50 years from now, and see which are the
more valuable to you -- your "art" photographs, or the snapshots. See which
ones evoke more "feelings" in you then: your lovely photos of a rock, or
your snapshots of relatives.
And see what that does to your notion that your own "feelings" are the
determinant of what's art.
John Falstaff
Read it again. You keep setting up these straw men and I'm not going to
bother with them anymore.
John Falstaff
<cont'd>
>
>>> So now if it doesn't do anything for you it isn't art?
>>
>> Not what I said. YOU'RE the one who says it has to do something for you
>> in
>> order to be art. I'VE been saying that art is art, whether it does
>> anything for me or not.
>>
>
> Actually you said these are a "gray area" in your opinion.
Read it again. I said there are gray areas; that has nothing to do with
whether I like the thing or not. There's a lot of art that is nonsense or
junk as far as I'm concerned, but still art.
>
>>
>>
>>> What would you call
>>> "not doing anything for me" other than your feelings?
>>
>> I agree, but again, you've misinterpreted what I said.
>>
>
> So what does calling certain art "a gray area" or "Some people call
> anything
> art" mean when you say it?
Being called art doesn't mean it's NOT art. That silly art-collecting couple
who have a short length of clothesline tacked to their wall say it's art.
The artist who tacked it there said it was art, i.e. he created it *as* art.
So it's art. It's also nonsense. Art and junk are not mutually exclusive.
>
>
>
>
>>> You have every right to be a snapshooter if you like and never try to
>>> expressyourself through your photography.
>>
>> Again, that's not what I said. But I will say that as a means of
>> self-expression, photography is a poor avenue compared to art.
>
> Could be because it's not something you've mastered and it's why you can't
> express yourself through this medium?
No. I "express" myself well enough, "through this medium" and others. But
you need to understand that self-expression is not necessarily the same
thing as communication. I have seen schizophrenics babbling incoherently who
were "expressing" themselves, but not communicating effectively. You can
indeed communicate through pictures, and for some purposes pictures (whether
done by camera or by hand) serve better than words. This is especially true
in the cases of diagrams, maps, drawings to explain some mechanical detail,
etc.
But what YOU say you want to do is "transmit feelings," and you have said
repeatedly that this is in fact your criteria for whether a thing is, or is
not, art. I'm sorry, but that is just nonsense.
You disagree? Then explain the "feelings" you think you "transmitted" with
the photos you've shown, the foggy lake for example. What "feelings"?
Describe them.
> There are sculptors would would say
> the same thing about playing the violin.
>
>
>> This is
>> because the photographer (generally speaking) doesn't *create*
>> anything --
>> he records something.
>
> Then I could only advise you find some other outlet if you feel this way.
> Seems like you're wasting your time if you truly feel limited by it as you
> assume EVERYONE is!
And you still don't understand why this attitude makes you look like you
think the world revolves around you?!
Amazing!
>
> I'm done trying to convince you as you seem to be totally immobile in your
> position, which is opposed to what most people think about photography
> being considered an art form. I do find it comical you ask me if I
> discount
> something as art that the general public considers art, yet you are doing
> exactly that saying that fine art photography can't exist.
I never said that. Again, you keep setting up these straw men to suit
yourself. Just read the words -- I'm responsible for what I say; I'm not
responsible for your misinterpretations, deliberate or otherwise.
> I might have
> considered discussing this further, but the whole "You think the world
> revolves around you" BS you keep repeating has become tiring...
>
> Again I sugest you give up photography is you really feel the way you
> posted
> as you'll never be able to do anything useful with it given the way you've
> limited yourself by these feelings.
There you are again, smugly positioned at the center of your own little
universe. I'm not the one who's "limited . . . by these feelings." You are.
You actually believe (correct?) that everyone has to be interested in
photography ONLY as you are, or else they'll "never be able to do anything
useful with it." But you're apparently interested in it only as
pretend-"art." You don't seem to take any pleasure in photography itself,
but have some need to keep trying to persuade yourself and others that your
photography is "art." You don't seem even to be aware that most other people
enjoy photography just for what it is.
I've been doing photography for 50+ years. I have always enjoyed it, and I
expect I will continue to as long as I live. I've also done a lot of art
work, and I've never confused the two. I've done very little photography
that I think of as art (or even a gray area), but I have done a lot of
photography that you would probably call "art."
Paul Furman
Philip Homburg
John Falstaff <n...@home.today> wrote:
>> I don't think it is very hard to come up with a set of criteria that sort
>> of makes it possible to determine whether a photograph is art or not.
>
>You're probably right, but as I think we have already seen here, no set of
>criteria is likely to satisfy everyone. Many will continue to believe a
>beautiful photograph is "art," even if it is just a technically good
>photographic record of a beautiful subject -- which is not art in and of
>itself.
So the idea is to work towards a set of rules that describe when a photo
is or isn't art, and then to see where there is disagreement.
>> I think that first step is that there has to be some kind of
>> communication.
>> It can be intentional (the photographer tries to show the viewers
>> something).
>> But, I think that picture can get a meaning of its own, beyond what the
>> maker set out to do.
>
>That confuses the issue. Art requires an artist (even if the "art" is only
>hamburger cooking). If the "picture can get a meaning of its own, beyond
>what the maker set out to do," then whatever that "meaning" is it certainly
>isn't art.
In that case, a huge amount of what is usually considered art (old paintings,
sculptures, etc.) is not art according to you.
I'd say that you are the odd one out in this respect.
>> The second step is that there has to be no practical use for the picture.
>> (Or the picture has be far enough removed from its original context).
>
>Why?
Because you get into problems if you define art to include the design of
practical objects.
>> However, it also possible that final result is much more that the sum
>> of the parts (Roger Water's Amused to Death is a good example). In that
>> case a large part of the art is created in the studio and is not
>> simply a registration of what was already there.
>>
>> With photography there are many ways to manipulate reality. Extreme lenses
>> (fish-eye), the use of depth of field, creative use of film, printing,
>> light, etc.
>
>The problem there is that you've now gotten into *selection* rather than
>creation. Changing focal length, depth of field, etc., are decisions made by
>a technician, not the work of an artist. The photographer isn't *creating*
>anything at all by those choices.
Creative use of depth of field has nothing to do with reproducing
reality. Reality is not selectively unsharp.
So, you are definitely not talking about a technician. You are talking about
somebody who is using artistic judgment.
Extreme lenses also go beyond mere reproduction of reality.
>anything at all by those choices. It's analogous to a person in a museum who
>changes his position so that he can look at a statue in a certain way, such
>that the statue has a certain relationship to the light, the background and
>other objects. That may indeed suggest an artistic *sensibility* but it is
>not art in itself, any more than an art critic is an artist.
This only a good analogy if you restrict the photographer to lenses, settings,
etc. that minimally distort the reality.
Using a fish-eye for a portrait is more like smashing the statue to pieces
and arranging the result in geometric patterns.
Yes, it is still based on the original statue, but anyone who sees the
result will notice that hand of the person who 'improved' it.
>> And in many cases the photographer acts as a director to make
>> sure that the people/objects in front of his camera are where they need to
>> be.
>
>There you have a point. To the extent that the photographer *arranges*
>things in the photograph, he is being creative at least to some small degree
>and therefore the resulting photograph is in some part his work, not merely
>a recording. This is a gray area, one of many (as I've alluded to). An
>artist doing a still life arranges objects too. The mere arrangement is not
>in itself a work of art, but is part of that work.
That is why it is important to carefully define what you consider art.
What is usually called photography is more than just holiday snapshots.
>> I think a reasonable test is whether the photo shows the same thing that
>> was seen / would be remembered by somebody who was there and acted
>> independently of the photographer.
>>
>> I think that in many cases, being selective is being creative.
>
>There we disagree. Is an art critic an artist? Motion pictures are art, but
>is a movie critic an artist?
Not 'is', but can be. Input to the piece is of course the movie. But if the
critic goes to great lengths to describe what he thinks of the movie and how
the movie relates to many other things, then that description can become
a work of art itself.
It is of course hard to draw the line. How much new material is needed to
go from, say, a summary of the movie to an independent piece of literary art.
But I have no doubts that it is possible.
>Again, this speaking more of artistic sensibility and judgement, than of art
>itself. Many people have such sensibility and judgement but cannot create
>the art themselves.
You are making to many assumptions. I guess that you have particular style
of art critics in mind. But it doesn't mean that there is nothing beyond
that.
>> A lot of
>> photos show the world in different ways. By being selective you can tell
>> people something about the world around them, something they do not see on
>> their own. And that goes beyond merely recording what was already there.
>
>No, I would say it shows recording with better than average judgement and
>sensibility. Still not *created* by the photographer, ergo still not art.
I guess you do not consider musician artists as well. After all, many of them
play pieces written by somebody else and play on instruments that to
a large extent dictate the resulting sound.
Calling it 'judgement' or 'sensibility' is fine if you are talking about
relative small, finite sets of possibilities. Deciding what works of art
to buy can be called judgment.
When the degree of freedom gets high enough, when nobody sees the original.
Then the only way people can see it is through the camera of the photographer.
Again, this is not about your average family snapshot. This is about
recording situations that are rare enough (or recording them in a way) that
essentially nobody has any chance of witnessing it in their lifetimes.
If you call that just the work of a technician, than you are assuming much
more about the artistic judgment of technicians than most people.
Jan Böhme
> John Falstaff wrote:
> >
> > Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be much
> > more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone lacking those
> > skills. It's not a trivial thing to be an expert technician, and no reason
> > for an accomplished technician to imagine he's an artist. Why some
> > photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious fact, I do not
> > know.
> If you want to just be a technician that's fine. Clearly you're too
> ignorant to see where the artistry enters the image.
But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies
in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to some
very limited extent manipulate what's there with artificial lighting,
or by using various filters, but that's about it
If you define true art as de novo creation - which is perfectly
reasonable - then literature, painting, composing and improvising are
art, but most photography isn't art at all - some photography may be
something highly worthy but completely different from art, such as, for
instance, journalism or documentation - and studio photography and
musical interpretation are art only in a very limited and narrow sense,
and are both fundamentally about being a good technician.
OTOH, one can observe empirically that the type of talent that
predisposes for being a good painter to some extent correlates with the
type predisposing for being a good photographer.
But this doesn't necessarily tell us that photigraphy is art. Only that
a good eye for mages is needed both in artistic painting and in
photography.
Jan Böhme
John Falstaff
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:6XZeg.26918$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Where is UC (Uranium Committee) in this discussion?
Beats the heck outa me. Who or what is that?
Scott W
UC is a very abrasive person who goes on about how photography is not
and can not be art. He often has some wisdom in what he says but he is
very socially challenged.
Scott
Scott W
>
> Here's a little (if necessarily long-term) experiment for you, and more than
> just an experiment, some good advice:
>
> Take as many of your pretend-"art" photographs as you like, but also take
> some snapshots of your family, friends, pets, cars, neighborhood, etc.
>
> Save them all. Look at them again 50 years from now, and see which are the
> more valuable to you -- your "art" photographs, or the snapshots. See which
> ones evoke more "feelings" in you then: your lovely photos of a rock, or
> your snapshots of relatives.
This is great advice.
I had two grandparents that both took a fair number of photographs. My
grandmother on my fathers side only took "artistic" photos. She
rarely caught a person in her photos. In fact her photos captured
nothing about her life or the people around her. My Grandfather on my
mother's side took what most would call snapshots. Her photographs
have no value at this point in time but his have great value.
Some time ago I looked back at my own photographs and found that the
pretty ones of mountains and such held little value for me, the photos
that I valued captured details of life. I still take photos of things
like mountains but I am sure to also take photographs who's only real
value is the memories. In the end it is the photographs that capture
memories that have the most value, at least for me.
Scott
Paul Furman
>>
>>Beats the heck outa me. Who or what is that?
>
> UC is a very abrasive person who goes on about how photography is not
> and can not be art. He often has some wisdom in what he says but he is
> very socially challenged.
Philosophy major.
J. Clarke
> G.T. wrote:
>> John Falstaff wrote:
>> >
>> > Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be
>> > much more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone
>> > lacking those skills. It's not a trivial thing to be an expert
>> > technician, and no reason for an accomplished technician to imagine
>> > he's an artist. Why some photographers feel insulted by this simple and
>> > fairly obvious fact, I do not know.
>
>> If you want to just be a technician that's fine. Clearly you're too
>> ignorant to see where the artistry enters the image.
>
> But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies
> in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to some
> very limited extent manipulate what's there with artificial lighting,
> or by using various filters, but that's about it
>
> If you define true art as de novo creation - which is perfectly
> reasonable - then literature, painting, composing and improvising are
> art, but most photography isn't art at all - some photography may be
> something highly worthy but completely different from art, such as, for
> instance, journalism or documentation - and studio photography and
> musical interpretation are art only in a very limited and narrow sense,
> and are both fundamentally about being a good technician.
Well, that's fine, but you've eliminated quite a lot of the examples used in
art history courses by that definition.
> OTOH, one can observe empirically that the type of talent that
> predisposes for being a good painter to some extent correlates with the
> type predisposing for being a good photographer.
>
> But this doesn't necessarily tell us that photigraphy is art. Only that
> a good eye for mages is needed both in artistic painting and in
> photography.
Or that your definition of "art" is flawed.
Paul Furman
> G.T. wrote:
>>John Falstaff wrote:
>>
>>>Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be much
>>>more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone lacking those
>>>skills. It's not a trivial thing to be an expert technician, and no reason
>>>for an accomplished technician to imagine he's an artist. Why some
>>>photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious fact, I do not
>>>know.
>
>>If you want to just be a technician that's fine. Clearly you're too
>>ignorant to see where the artistry enters the image.
>
> But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies
> in the selection. You can only photograph what's there.
But 'what's there' includes everything from all possible angles at all
times of day or night, all possible focal lengths and perspectives, all
possible depths of field at all possible points of focus and shutter
speeds, ISO, contrasts & saturations, color, B&W, manipulated, all of
it. All people in all their moods and dress, posture & motion.
Everything in nature & science. Anything that bounces or absorbs light.
John Falstaff
How so? What "meaning" does a painting or sculpture have that wasn't
intended by the artist? (And how would you KNOW this?)
>
> I'd say that you are the odd one out in this respect.
>
>>> The second step is that there has to be no practical use for the
>>> picture.
>>> (Or the picture has be far enough removed from its original context).
>>
>>Why?
>
> Because you get into problems if you define art to include the design of
> practical objects.
What problems?
A vase for example can be a work of art, and still be a practical object. So
can an automobile, for that matter.
Even if we limit the discussion to two-dimensional images -- I have seen
many old maps that are works of art and still had obvious practical use.
Depending on how you define "practical use," I would say old paintings and
sculptures of historical persons are useful -- not in the sense of helping
us in some physical way, but insofar as they satisfy our natural curiosity
about what those people looked like. And so on.
>
>>> However, it also possible that final result is much more that the sum
>>> of the parts (Roger Water's Amused to Death is a good example). In that
>>> case a large part of the art is created in the studio and is not
>>> simply a registration of what was already there.
>>>
>>> With photography there are many ways to manipulate reality. Extreme
>>> lenses
>>> (fish-eye), the use of depth of field, creative use of film, printing,
>>> light, etc.
>>
>>The problem there is that you've now gotten into *selection* rather than
>>creation. Changing focal length, depth of field, etc., are decisions made
>>by
>>a technician, not the work of an artist. The photographer isn't *creating*
>>anything at all by those choices.
>
> Creative use of depth of field has nothing to do with reproducing
> reality. Reality is not selectively unsharp.
That's true, but the reality photographed wasn't created by the artist
either. Making the parts other than the subject unsharp by selective focus
is the work of a technician, not an artist, as far as I can see. It
certainly isn't creating anything.
>
> So, you are definitely not talking about a technician. You are talking
> about
> somebody who is using artistic judgment.
They are not mutually exclusive. Why wouldn't you expect a technician
working with image production to have artistic judgement?
>
> Extreme lenses also go beyond mere reproduction of reality.
Only insofar as we are used to seeing pictures made with rectilinear lenses
of roughly "normal" focal length. Extreme telephoto, wide angle or even
fisheye lenses all produce images of reality just as valid and correct, if
less usual.
>
>>anything at all by those choices. It's analogous to a person in a museum
>>who
>>changes his position so that he can look at a statue in a certain way,
>>such
>>that the statue has a certain relationship to the light, the background
>>and
>>other objects. That may indeed suggest an artistic *sensibility* but it is
>>not art in itself, any more than an art critic is an artist.
>
> This only a good analogy if you restrict the photographer to lenses,
> settings,
> etc. that minimally distort the reality.
That gets into a whole other area that I don't think would be useful getting
into in this connection. But briefly, NO lens reproduces reality as we see
it, i.e. as the eye-brain system works. The differences between the way we
see the world around us, and the way any camera lens sees that world, are
enormous. "Normal" rectilinear lenses only give an illusion of normalcy,
albeit a satisfactory one for ordinary purposes.
>
> Using a fish-eye for a portrait is more like smashing the statue to pieces
> and arranging the result in geometric patterns.
>
> Yes, it is still based on the original statue, but anyone who sees the
> result will notice that hand of the person who 'improved' it.
Because it doesn't appear to be "normal." But in certain respects the
fisheye lens more closely approximates human vision than "normal"
rectilinear lenses do.
The writing may be a work of art, of course. In this case a work of art
*about* a work of art, but the critic is still not an artist in the sense
that the director (et al.) were.
>
> It is of course hard to draw the line. How much new material is needed to
> go from, say, a summary of the movie to an independent piece of literary
> art.
> But I have no doubts that it is possible.
>
>>Again, this speaking more of artistic sensibility and judgement, than of
>>art
>>itself. Many people have such sensibility and judgement but cannot create
>>the art themselves.
>
> You are making to many assumptions. I guess that you have particular style
> of art critics in mind. But it doesn't mean that there is nothing beyond
> that.
Well, I was thinking of critics in general.
>
>>> A lot of
>>> photos show the world in different ways. By being selective you can tell
>>> people something about the world around them, something they do not see
>>> on
>>> their own. And that goes beyond merely recording what was already there.
>>
>>No, I would say it shows recording with better than average judgement and
>>sensibility. Still not *created* by the photographer, ergo still not art.
>
> I guess you do not consider musician artists as well. After all, many of
> them
> play pieces written by somebody else and play on instruments that to
> a large extent dictate the resulting sound.
Again, a gray area, at least to me. I am not that knowledgeable about music.
>
> Calling it 'judgement' or 'sensibility' is fine if you are talking about
> relative small, finite sets of possibilities. Deciding what works of art
> to buy can be called judgment.
>
> When the degree of freedom gets high enough, when nobody sees the
> original.
> Then the only way people can see it is through the camera of the
> photographer.
You have an interesting point about a higher "degree of freedom," but I
don't really see how that makes it different *in kind* from selection.
>
> Again, this is not about your average family snapshot. This is about
> recording situations that are rare enough (or recording them in a way)
> that
> essentially nobody has any chance of witnessing it in their lifetimes.
>
> If you call that just the work of a technician, than you are assuming much
> more about the artistic judgment of technicians than most people.
Well, of course there are technicians and technicians. There has been
throughout this discussion, on the other side from my own, the implication
that technicians must somehow be inferior to artists, that they do
pedestrian grunt work or something as opposed to the presumably exalted work
that artists do. Perhaps in part this is because of a general sense that
technicians are mainly people who repair things, fix problems, etc.,
somewhat like plumbers or electricians. The phrase you just used, "just the
work of a technician," has that same shade of meaning, sort of a diminution
of technicians' work, and I suppose that's inevitable.
But photography, in the past to some degree but much more now in the digital
age, is a highly technical field. I would certainly agree that it's a
blending of technical knowledge and skills with artistic interests and
sensibilities, but the work itself, I would say, in general, is more
technical than artistic.
John Falstaff
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149009575.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
That's my own experience too, Scott.
I've got loads of photographs taken over the decades. Many of them are good,
but photos of the people, places and things that were important to me
personally over the course of my life have by far the greater value for me
now, and I only wish I'd taken more of them. Some things you just don't
realize the value of until it's way too late.
John Falstaff
Ah. I'll keep an eye out for him. ;-)
John Falstaff
> Jan Böhme wrote:
>> G.T. wrote:
>>>John Falstaff wrote:
>>>
>>>>Making any kind of a recording, including a photograph, is likely to be
>>>>much
>>>>more successfully done by a skilled technician than by someone lacking
>>>>those
>>>>skills. It's not a trivial thing to be an expert technician, and no
>>>>reason
>>>>for an accomplished technician to imagine he's an artist. Why some
>>>>photographers feel insulted by this simple and fairly obvious fact, I do
>>>>not
>>>>know.
>>
>>>If you want to just be a technician that's fine. Clearly you're too
>>>ignorant to see where the artistry enters the image.
>>
>> But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies
>> in the selection. You can only photograph what's there.
>
> But 'what's there' includes everything from all possible angles at all
> times of day or night, all possible focal lengths and perspectives, all
> possible depths of field at all possible points of focus and shutter
> speeds, ISO, contrasts & saturations, color, B&W, manipulated, all of it.
> All people in all their moods and dress, posture & motion. Everything in
> nature & science. Anything that bounces or absorbs light.
Sure. That's the great thing about three-dimensional stuff: you can
photograph it from any direction, and in a variety of ways. ;-)
Jan Böhme
> Jan Böhme wrote:
> > If you define true art as de novo creation - which is perfectly
> > reasonable - then literature, painting, composing and improvising are
> > art, but most photography isn't art at all - some photography may be
> > something highly worthy but completely different from art, such as, for
> > instance, journalism or documentation - and studio photography and
> > musical interpretation are art only in a very limited and narrow sense,
> > and are both fundamentally about being a good technician.
>
> Well, that's fine, but you've eliminated quite a lot of the examples used in
> art history courses by that definition.
Umm, yes. Not necessarliy the best yardstick to abide by, though. Would
you trust an academic to decide what is art? I certainly wouldn't, and
then I'm a university professor myself.
> > OTOH, one can observe empirically that the type of talent that
> > predisposes for being a good painter to some extent correlates with the
> > type predisposing for being a good photographer.
> >
> > But this doesn't necessarily tell us that photigraphy is art. Only that
> > a good eye for mages is needed both in artistic painting and in
> > photography.
>
> Or that your definition of "art" is flawed.
Although I'm sure that one can find definitions, for instance of "art",
that are truly flawed, any definition that doesn't conform to the
expectations of certain people isn't by necessity flawed. It is
entirely possible to have several definitions of concepts like "art"
that are mutually exclusive, but still good and useful for their
purpose.
Jan Böhme
Jan Böhme
> > But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies
> > in the selection. You can only photograph what's there.
>
> But 'what's there' includes everything from all possible angles at all
> times of day or night, all possible focal lengths and perspectives, all
> possible depths of field at all possible points of focus and shutter
> speeds, ISO, contrasts & saturations, color, B&W, manipulated, all of
> it. All people in all their moods and dress, posture & motion.
> Everything in nature & science. Anything that bounces or absorbs light.
True. You an easily argue that there is an infinity of possible
photographic images. But the set of possible images painted with
artistic imagination is an infinity of greater power. I mean it more as
a metaphor than as exact set theory math, but you can easily imagine
that while there are aleph-0 different possible photographs, there are
at least aleph-1 possible different paintings.
Jan Böhme
Paul Furman
> Philip Homburg wrote:
>> John Falstaff wrote:
> ...What "meaning" does a painting or sculpture have that wasn't
> intended by the artist?
I think you understand this but the artist doesn't normally determine
the meaning, he/she just does it with feeling and skill and the viewer
has their own interpretation.
>>Creative use of depth of field has nothing to do with reproducing
>>reality. Reality is not selectively unsharp.
>
> That's true, but the reality photographed wasn't created by the artist
> either. Making the parts other than the subject unsharp by selective focus
> is the work of a technician, not an artist, as far as I can see. It
> certainly isn't creating anything.
It *is* so!
: - )
Those are significant descisions which effect the mood and direct the
viewer's attention.
>>I guess you do not consider musician artists as well. After all, many of
>>them play pieces written by somebody else and play on instruments that
>>to a large extent dictate the resulting sound.
>
> Again, a gray area, at least to me. I am not that knowledgeable about music.
Ha, great example. The interpretation can be the art. It takes more than
technical skill to perform great music.
>>Calling it 'judgement' or 'sensibility' is fine if you are talking about
>>relative small, finite sets of possibilities. Deciding what works of art
>>to buy can be called judgment.
>>
>>When the degree of freedom gets high enough, when nobody sees the
>>original.
>>Then the only way people can see it is through the camera of the
>>photographer.
>
> You have an interesting point about a higher "degree of freedom," but I
> don't really see how that makes it different *in kind* from selection.
>
>>Again, this is not about your average family snapshot. This is about
>>recording situations that are rare enough (or recording them in a way)
>>that essentially nobody has any chance of witnessing it in their
>>lifetimes.
>>
>>If you call that just the work of a technician, than you are assuming much
>>more about the artistic judgment of technicians than most people.
>
> Well, of course there are technicians and technicians. There has been
> throughout this discussion, on the other side from my own, the implication
> that technicians must somehow be inferior to artists, that they do
> pedestrian grunt work or something as opposed to the presumably exalted work
> that artists do. Perhaps in part this is because of a general sense that
> technicians are mainly people who repair things, fix problems, etc.,
> somewhat like plumbers or electricians. The phrase you just used, "just the
> work of a technician," has that same shade of meaning, sort of a diminution
> of technicians' work, and I suppose that's inevitable.
People do talk about great auto mechanics as artists but that's
stretching it. :-) Maybe watching the excellent judgement & skill could
be legitimately called an artistic performance but the end result is
just an operational car (and a satisfied customer).
> But photography, in the past to some degree but much more now in the digital
> age, is a highly technical field. I would certainly agree that it's a
> blending of technical knowledge and skills with artistic interests and
> sensibilities,
Agreed.
> but the work itself, I would say, in general, is more
> technical than artistic.
Disagreed. In general fine art oil painting may require more technical
than artistic abilities but it's usually uninspiring without artistic
intent and results.
Jan Böhme
> John Falstaff wrote:
> > You find an appealing subject. You have certain feelings about that
> > subject, viewed in that way. You photograph it. Someone else who views
> > your photograph may or may not have the same feelings about it that you
> > did, but in either case how is that "transmitting YOUR feelings"?
> > (emphasis added)
>
> If you make them feel the same way you did,
How would you ever know that you have?
> then you TRANSMITTED YOUR
> FEELINGS which is what we should be trying to do.
Why is this what we should be trying to do? It definitely isn't what I
try to do when I write music, for instance, so it hasn't anything to do
with whether photography in particular is an art or not. The feelings I
have when I write the music are quite distinct from those that the
listeners experience, I'm pretty sure - because I have never
experienced anything even vaguely simliar to the feelings I have when I
write music when I listen to other people's music - be it great, good
or mediocre.
To be brutally honest, I've always taken this "transmit your feelings"
stuff as pretentious crap emanating from insecure people who think that
they need a simple patent definition of what art is, and how good art
should be. There isn't any reason in the world that art should be even
remotely as simple as that. Indeed, we know that it isn't, as
knowledgeable people with good artistic judgment often disagree on
whether a given piece of work is great art or not.
Besides, I've always thought that this concept denigrates art to some
kind of equivalent to the bell that Pavlov used to make his dogs
salivate - just a way of pressing other people's emotional buttons. If
this really would be what art is all about, then propagandists like
Goebbles are the world's greatest artists.
> > Certain subjects may, and often do, elicit similar feelings in different
> > people. That is hardly "transmitting [their] feelings" from person to
> > person, and it seems to me the height of arrogance for any photographer to
> > presume that that's what he's doing.
>
> If they aren't attempting to do this, there is little point in bothering to
> create that image!
Wouldn't the mere beauty of it, for one thing, be more of a point than
all the provoked emotions in the universe?
Indeed, if I ever thought I would need a quick and simple patent
definition of what art is about, I would say that it is about beauty -
not primarily about feelings. (Of course beauty evokes feelings - but
so does essentially everything else.) An artist always strives to
create beauty. This isn't a particularly useful definition, as the
beauty might not be obvious to all, but it is to the artist, even if he
doesn't even acknowledge it himself - or even to himself.
> > Art is not necessarily
> > beautiful, appealing, good, interesting or even competent.
>
> If it coveys no feeling, it's not art.
Do you really think that this definition is useful at all? Is there
anything that isn't art by that yardstick? Boredom and disappointment
are just as real feelings as any other.
Jan Böhme
Paul Furman
said it had to be 'interesting' to be art, well that includes science
and some porn. And yes, beauty inspires different interpretations.
Jan Böhme wrote:
--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com
G.T.
"Jan Böhme" <jan....@sh.se> wrote in message
news:1149006369....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
"But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies
in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to some
very limited extent manipulate what's there with artificial lighting,
or by using various filters, but that's about it"
The extent to which you can change the lighting on a set, arrange the parts
of a still life, change your perspective, change composition, etc, are
pretty limitless. If one simply pushes a button as on a copy machine then I
wouldn't consider the results very artful (unless someone had manipulated
the copy machine thereby introducing creativity), but once you start
introducing aspects that can be changed and you manipulate those aspects
creatively then you are creating art.
Greg
--
"What have you got in that paper bag?
Is it a dose of Vitamin C?
Ain't got no time for Western medicine
I am Damo Suzuki" - Mark E Smith
J. Clarke
> J. Clarke skrev:
>
>> Jan Böhme wrote:
>
>> > If you define true art as de novo creation - which is perfectly
>> > reasonable - then literature, painting, composing and improvising are
>> > art, but most photography isn't art at all - some photography may be
>> > something highly worthy but completely different from art, such as, for
>> > instance, journalism or documentation - and studio photography and
>> > musical interpretation are art only in a very limited and narrow sense,
>> > and are both fundamentally about being a good technician.
>>
>> Well, that's fine, but you've eliminated quite a lot of the examples used
>> in art history courses by that definition.
>
> Umm, yes. Not necessarliy the best yardstick to abide by, though. Would
> you trust an academic to decide what is art? I certainly wouldn't, and
> then I'm a university professor myself.
By that logic we should discard your definition as well.
>> > OTOH, one can observe empirically that the type of talent that
>> > predisposes for being a good painter to some extent correlates with the
>> > type predisposing for being a good photographer.
>> >
>> > But this doesn't necessarily tell us that photigraphy is art. Only that
>> > a good eye for mages is needed both in artistic painting and in
>> > photography.
>>
>> Or that your definition of "art" is flawed.
>
> Although I'm sure that one can find definitions, for instance of "art",
> that are truly flawed, any definition that doesn't conform to the
> expectations of certain people isn't by necessity flawed. It is
> entirely possible to have several definitions of concepts like "art"
> that are mutually exclusive, but still good and useful for their
> purpose.
Which means that there is no general agreement on the definition of the
word, which makes any discussion of whether a particular artifact is or is
not "art" a matter of politics rather than reason.
J. Clarke
By that logic drawings can't be art because for every drawing there is an
infinity of possible paintings.
J. Clarke
Seems to me that art is like any other kind of technology. If it does what
the artist wanted it to do then from his viewpoint it succeeds. If it
doesn't, it fails. If it does something totally different that is even
better than he wanted then serendipity is achieved even if the work is from
the artist's viewpoint a failure.
The notion that that artist _must_ wish to "convey his feelings" or to
"create beauty" seems to be putting artists in a straight jacket. If
that's what he's trying to do, that's fine. H.R. Giger claims that some of
his work is disposing of his psychological problems--"I don't have any
problems, when I do have one I make a painting and give my problem to
somebody else" or words to that effect. And some of his problems are not
pretty. And some of his paintings are pretty powerful.
John McWilliams
>
> But he has a point. With photography, the only "creative" element lies
> in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to some
> very limited extent manipulate what's there with artificial lighting,
> or by using various filters, but that's about it
>
You demonstrate a considerable lack of understanding via the above
"definition".
--
John McWilliams
Jan Böhme
> Jan Böhme wrote:
>
> > J. Clarke skrev:
> >> Well, that's fine, but you've eliminated quite a lot of the examples used
> >> in art history courses by that definition.
> >
> > Umm, yes. Not necessarliy the best yardstick to abide by, though. Would
> > you trust an academic to decide what is art? I certainly wouldn't, and
> > then I'm a university professor myself.
>
> By that logic we should discard your definition as well.
Well, first off, I stated that I didn't think it was particularly
useful in a practical sense. But second, at least I don't think that I
gave my definition _in my capacity as_ an academic. I am a professor of
molecular biology who has happend to be heavily involved in music -
first and foremost as an interpreter, but also as a composer and
arranger, and who also is an amataur photographer.
I leave it to you to evaluate which experience is most relevant for
coming up with a notion (rather than a strict definition, really) of
what is art.
> > Although I'm sure that one can find definitions, for instance of "art",
> > that are truly flawed, any definition that doesn't conform to the
> > expectations of certain people isn't by necessity flawed. It is
> > entirely possible to have several definitions of concepts like "art"
> > that are mutually exclusive, but still good and useful for their
> > purpose.
>
> Which means that there is no general agreement on the definition of the
> word, which makes any discussion of whether a particular artifact is or is
> not "art" a matter of politics rather than reason.
It still doesn't make a discussion of whether a particular artifact is
art _pointless_, for one thing. And I'm also not certain that
"politics" and "reason" ar the only two relevant categories.
But I wrote as I did to point out that there may well be multiple
useful and valid definitions of art to a poster who seemed singularly
locked into a very narrow definition. I don't really bother with
defining art. My only beef is with people who think that they can
themselves, and using very simplistic criteria, to boot.
Jan Böhme
Stacey
> With photography, the only "creative" element lies
> in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to some
> very limited extent manipulate what's there with artificial lighting,
> or by using various filters, but that's about it
>
This just shows me how limited your skills are..
My guess is: you consider something else you do as "real art" just like John
does and can't see photography being anywhere near as important as what
your preferend mode of self expression is. I think the word John used was
"Pompus"?
--
Stacey
Stacey
The word "Snapshooter" comes to mind! :-)
--
Stacey
J. Clarke
In that case I think we are in agreement.
> Jan Böhme
Philip Homburg
Even worse, assuming that the painting is meant for a human viewer with an
unaided eye, with a limited resolution, there are that only a finite number
of paintings that can be seen as different.
Every print that is made of a photograph is different in the physical sense,
but we consider them all the same because we can't really tell them apart.
Applying that same thing to paintings gives you a finite number of possible
paintings.
(At first I wanted to argue about the different kinds of infinities, but the
'technician' inside me took over from the 'mathematician' and discarded
the infinity.)
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Tony Polson
>
>Seems to me that art is like any other kind of technology.
Congratulations! You just won the rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
"Dumbass Statement of the Year Award 2006".
I know there are over seven months to go, but there is *no* chance of
anyone topping that this year!
;-)
Jan Böhme
Stacey wrote:
> Jan Böhme wrote:
>
> > With photography, the only "creative" element lies
> > in the selection. You can only photograph what's there. You may to some
> > very limited extent manipulate what's there with artificial lighting,
> > or by using various filters, but that's about it
> This just shows me how limited your skills are...
Pauls riposte, that the total possibilities of selection are
essentially infinite, was quite a bit more insightful than this. You
have absolutely no way of telling what my skills are from the way I
talk about such general subjects as art and creativity. Many superb
photographers are quite limited in abstract thinking, and come through
either as pretty daft and inept, or as completely artisticaly
dependent, if forced to talk about what they do on an abstract level.
> My guess is: you consider something else you do as "real art" just like John
> does and can't see photography being anywhere near as important as what
> your preferend mode of self expression is.
Not quite. I do, if not real - I have no idea what "real" art is, nor
any particular desire to know - so at least generally undisputable,
art, when I do musical composing - quite rarely, these days I'm sorry
to say. I don't consider musical composing necessarily more important
than photography. But it certainly is something quite different, which
gives me a perspective that people who only do photography lack in
discussions about the essence of art. And this complementary
perspective makes me want to challenge many of the cocksure canned
pontifications about the true nature of art that one is taught in
advanced photography classes.
Musical composers very rarely go on about how art is about conveying
emotions, for instance. In fact, they very rarely go on about the
essence of art at all. At the most theoretical, some of them might -
after a number of beers - like to speculate about the essence of
_music_.
The fact that many photogs not only go on about art in general, but
indeed are taught in class to do so according to precise, specific and
exclusive definitions, probably tells someting on the relative artistic
self-confidence of composers and photographers in general,
respectively.
And this is quite unneccessary, I think. Composing is about making good
music. Photography is about taking good pictures. As "good" is a
relative concept, the best you can do as an individual is to write the
music you want to write, or take the photos that you want to take, and
leave it at that. Just improve your skills so that you really can write
the music you want to write, or really take the photos you want to
take. Nothing needs to be more lofty or conceited than this. I
sincerely doubt that anyone has ever made a single shot better in any
way because they have been taught in class that the essence of a good
image is conveying your emotions.
I would even go as far as to state that even starting to wonder about
how one could change the way one is working to make it conform to
predetermined notions of what is art, is a surefire recipe for disaster
in any art form, whether generally acknowledged as such or not.
Jan Böhme
Jan Böhme
If you want to criticise my lack of understanding, it might be
convenient to do so in generally understandable English, if you want me
to have a chance to improve this deplorably faulty understanding of
whatever it now is that I demonstrate considerable lack of
understanding about.
What on earth does "lack of understanding via the above definition"
mean? I can understand what lack of understanding _of_ a definition
means. But I'm damned if I can understand what lack of understanding
_via_ a definition is. If you instead mean to say, for instance, "You
haven't understood this and this and that, which is surprising bearing
mind the definition you used", why can't you say so?
Jan Böhme
J. Clarke
Now why is that a "dumbass statement"? Or are you one of those poor
pathetic souls who thinks that art is not technology?
Jan Böhme
> The word "Snapshooter" comes to mind! :-)
Stacey, it isn't supposed to be within the competence of a photographer
to judge the quality of another photog's work by what type of arguments
he uses in a discussion about the essence of art. From what I write, I
might be all crap, I might be great, you can't know.
(And I don't really bother what I am, since I don't do photograpy
either for a living or even primarily to get appreciation from other
people. However, one thing I do know is that I make way too few
snapshots. For the very reason "John Falstaff" outlined, this despised,
lowly form of photography very often is the kind that is most
appreciated with time. So I should do more, much more. Only problem is
that I don't think taking snapshots particularly fun - and I do this
for the fun of it.)
OTOH, _my_ employer demands of _me_ that I am able adequately to judge
the intellectual merits of an argument or a reasoning.
I have so far voluntarily desisted from making more extensive use of my
professional competence in this area here...
Jan Böhme
Jan Böhme
> Jan Böhme wrote:
> > You an easily argue that there is an infinity of possible
> > photographic images. But the set of possible images painted with
> > artistic imagination is an infinity of greater power. I mean it more as
> > a metaphor than as exact set theory math, but you can easily imagine
> > that while there are aleph-0 different possible photographs, there are
> > at least aleph-1 possible different paintings.
>
> By that logic drawings can't be art because for every drawing there is an
> infinity of possible paintings.
Well, no. At least if I remember my set theory right, (been a long time
since, I have to admit) aleph-0 times aleph-0 is still aleph-0. For
instance, for every integer, there is an infinite number of rational
mumbers before the next integer. Still, both total number of integers
and the total number of rational numbers is aleph-0
Philip is of course right that my metaphor - I pointed out that I
intended it as no more - is highly suspect. But if you go with it, as
you seem to do, I'm still consistent.
Already without pointing out that I did not in any way claim to
_define_ art with my metaphor of cardinalities. Just to make a very
specific argument.
Jan Böhme
Tony Polson
>Now why is that a "dumbass statement"?
Answers on a postcard to ...
Mr J Clarke,
...