How much of good photography is in the eyes of the beholder?
Patrick L.
restarted, I note that there were posters who admired the shot, and
others who trashed it.
No doubt there are obvious stinko shots that most, perhaps, would
toss, but there seems to be a definite area of photography where
quality is, like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder.
Comments?
Patrick L.
Q.G. de Bakker
> [...]
> Comments?
Some people detest brussels sprouts, others love them.
Why would photography be different?
John Stafford
And some of us like brussels sprouts, but not warmed over for the 100th
time in bad light. :)
Gregg
Annika1980's ceiling is another man's floor, so to speak .....
"Patrick L." <nice...@ifyoucangetit.com> wrote in message
news:ezWZ9.3007$wd2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Pierre L
(paintings for instance). Sometimes there's really nothing to behold, but
everyone assumes there is and just goes along with it. Much of what I see in
"pro" photo galleries on websites, is superb technically, but totally
lacking in anything of interest other than the technical perfection. I'm not
an expert by any means, but I know what I like - and a lot of it is on
amateur galaries, like one I looked at recently which has B & W scenes of
Paris on it (can't remember where).
Pierre
"Gregg" <juri...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:i7XZ9.3044$wd2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
John Garrison
"Patrick L." <nice...@ifyoucangetit.com> wrote in message
news:ezWZ9.3007$wd2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Most definitely you are on to something. Like any form of art, any one
example will have its lovers and detractors. Before I was anywhere near
heavy into photography I wondered if it could be considered art. In my mind
at the time, it was a recording method, that some people did better than
others. Possibly fun to do but maybe not art. But I reserve the right to be
educated, and now find that yes, it is art. What makes it so is up to
interpretation I am afraid; and therein comes the difference in opinion
whether any given example is worthy. I for one, thought the picture in "how
to meter" was beautiful.
John Garrison
"Pierre L" <pier...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7sXZ9.3456$qg1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
I do appreciate the technical wonders for what they are. I suppose that the
scene itself was uninspired is no reason the execution was likewise. But I
find I enjoy for a longer period the interesting scenes.....Paris in snow
for a like example.
Annika1980
>It's "all" in the eye of the beholder, just like everything else
>
>Annika1980's ceiling is another man's floor, so to speak ...
Ain't no ceiling on my talent, baby!
Tony Spadaro
want - that's nice, but if I didn't get what I want, it's still failure.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Patrick L." <nice...@ifyoucangetit.com> wrote in message
news:ezWZ9.3007$wd2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
stan
"flowers" was wonderful. Brilliant and colorful. His homo-erotic
photography I could have done without. The aesthetics of photography, or
any creaitive medium-art, writing etc., is truly in the eye of the
beholder. In the early '70s a guy named Larry Clark did a series of drug
photos called "Tulsa". A series of people involved with drugs. Mmixing
heating, shooting. Haunting work. Shortly after the series was out and to
rave reviews I had a chance to see the original prints. I loved his
printing ability but not the Subject. Some others loved it. Go figure. If
your shootong for yourself and you love it fine, if for a magazine layout
and the art director loves it great. But most things seem to lay in the
"who cares" mushland. Sorry for the long post.
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
NickC
photo's that are technically excellent that I would not award any prizes
for. Its been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. I happen to
agree with that ancient observation. Therefore, a picture either speaks to
me in a meaningful manner or it doesn't. I hold composition and lighting
effect as being more important than just the subject matter.
Then again, I'm one who thinks Salvador Dali's artistic paintings are
indeed paintings of quality yet think they are worthy of nothing more than
being used for target practice. OTOH, museums as well as the art world
treasure them. :)
Nick
NickC
Oh, an outdoors man, eh.:)
Nick
Alan Browne
If anything, the previous thread reinforced the notion that you can't
approach art by committee.
There is nothing wrong with that shot at all. The artist made the shot
as the artist saw fit. That is all that counts. I like the dark/lit
floor and far black background. The right side of the body may be
slightly burned in, but it contrasts with the black in a stark way...
Great variety of tones in the sheet and accross the shoulders.
It occurs to me that the lighting would have been more gradual and less
stark if positioned further away. You might then have gotten more
detail on the left and less burn on the right of the subject. (eg: less
sensitive to 1/r² law).
As to metering, I loved the variety of methods proposed! Everyone has
their own private understanding of metering and their own preferences in
setting the light.
Cheers,
Alan.
Gene
When doing wedding proof booiks, I check the proofs with a loupe and pick
out the best image. I put that in the book and the rest in an envelope
labeled blinks & dupes. It never fails that I get orders for album prints or
extra prints from that envelope. There are always proofs in the book that
don't get ordered that my wife and I pick to display as samples of our work.
Street photography is a popular sport for many. I see much of that type of
work that I admire, but much more that I cannot understand why it was ever
published. I guess I just don't have the appreciation for that type of work.
I guess, the old story "I know it when I see it."
Gene
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Lv_Z9.134$qi3.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Gordon Moat
focus, and nothing out of focus. There are others who like very little
in focus, or even motion blurs in their photos. I have seen pinhole
photography hanging in galleries, and utter crap from high dollar camera
gear.
While it is important to understand, and know, the technical aspects of
photography, that should not be all there is to taking photos. Much like
I learned in painting, drawing, and design, once you know the rules and
technical issues, then you know how and when to break them. It would be
nice to quantify colour choices, composition, lighting, et al., but in
the end photography is another art form with few rules that cannot be
broken to gain an effect.
Thoughtfulness and compelling content in your photography will get you
farther than any level of technical ability. Experiment in every way you
can perceive, and discover. You don't need eyes to see, you need vision.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Jim
to me that
most of these threads are a popularity contest. I'm om this news group
photo.net and photosig. I have submitted photos photo.net that got
very good scores (well the best for me) and then put the same photos
on photosig and
they weretrashed. I then took top photos from photsig and put them on
photo
net and they were trashed. I then went to my website and picked a few
that got the highest number of hit and they were trashed on both
phot.net and photosig.
So, which were good photograhs. God only knows. I do know which are my
favorites. I also have had problems with one or two (ha, ha, ha),
pointed
out which have improved me as a photographer, which is what I was
really
after.
So, what makes a good photograph. One that a lot of people enjoy.
Doesn't
mean that different groups of people are going to come to the same
conclusions.
Jim
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
* Check-out my web site at: http://SwensonStudio.com *
* landscape and travel photographs, featuring gorgeous sunsets *
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
"Patrick L." <nice...@ifyoucangetit.com> wrote in message news:<ezWZ9.3007$wd2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Dennis O'Connor
example, could draw and paint like a Michangelo, and did for a number of
years, before he went out and broke the rules of perspective, becoming
Picasso... The shortest route for any of us to become a master of
photography is to first, master the medium...
Denny
"Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3E3973F8...@attglobal.net...
J Stafford
Funny that the 'art' in the eye of the artist often isn't recognized until
his eyes and all the rest of him has become worm food.
Gregory L. Hansen
>I loved Mapplethorpes "Lisa" series. Absolutley beautiful. His still-life
>"flowers" was wonderful. Brilliant and colorful. His homo-erotic
>photography I could have done without. The aesthetics of photography, or
>any creaitive medium-art, writing etc., is truly in the eye of the
>beholder. In the early '70s a guy named Larry Clark did a series of drug
I don't know, I think you can identify fine art even if it's art you don't
like. Besides the technical issues you might recognize the shading, the
movement suggested in the positions of the bodies, and other aspects of
the homo-erotic art, for instance, that tell you it really was well
conceived and executed, even if you could do without it.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Lewis Lang
>From: "Tony Spadaro" tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com
>Date: Thu, Jan 30, 2003 12:40 AM
>Message-id: <Lv_Z9.134$qi3.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com>
>
>If I get what I want in the shot it's a success. If I get what other people
>want - that's nice, but if I didn't get what I want, it's still failure.
>
>--
>http://chapelhillnoir.com
>and partial home of
>The Camera-ist's Manifesto
>The Links are at
>http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
Amen to that! :-)
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Due to spam, I no longer accept emails at this address. Ping me on the ng or go
to my website & click on "LEWISCONTACT" to email. Sorry for the inconvenience
:-).
Lewis Lang
>From: NickC n-c...@attbi.com
>Date: Thu, Jan 30, 2003 8:01 AM
>Message-id: <3E38DBCB...@attbi.com>
>
>It's not quality that's in the eye of this beholder. I've seen many quality
>
>photo's that are technically excellent that I would not award any prizes
>
>for. Its been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. I happen to
>
>agree with that ancient observation. Therefore, a picture either speaks
>to
>me in a meaningful manner or it doesn't. I hold composition and lighting
>
>effect as being more important than just the subject matter.
>
>Then again, I'm one who thinks Salvador Dali's artistic paintings are
>indeed paintings of quality yet think they are worthy of nothing more than
>
>being used for target practice. OTOH, museums as well as the art world
>treasure them. :)
>
>Nick
Sort of like Escher, magnificent technique and some interesting ideas, but
there's an intellectual coldness to his work that, though his work is
interesting, leaves me/my emotions rather "dry". I wonderif its still art if it
leaves me moved on just about every level except the emotional level - even a
bad accident on the highway or the tv's bad news seems to move me more though
neither of those is "art" to me, though they're both man made. Though I'll have
to say that not even the driest Escher or Dali has made me want to go for the
shotgun yet, as for Annican'ts work though...
This post is...
Š 2003 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and shotgun shells ;-)) Reserved
REGARDS,
Lewis Lang
>From: "Dennis O'Connor" doco...@chartermi.net
>Date: Thu, Jan 30, 2003 8:19 PM
>Message-id: <v3j26uk...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>One needs to master the medium before breaking the rules... Picasso, for
>example, could draw and paint like a Michangelo, and did for a number of
>years, before he went out and broke the rules of perspective, becoming
>Picasso... The shortest route for any of us to become a master of
>photography is to first, master the medium...
>
>Denny
Not only did Picasso steal/"borrow" from other artist's styles and visions (at
least up to Cubism where he found (discovered and invented and borrowed from
Oceiana art and African masks) his own style that expressed his own vision) but
he later claimed to fake even Picasso's. I guess even the masters can go on
autopilot if they want to...
This post is...
Š 2003 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and fake Picassos) Reserved
Regards,
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Jan 31, 2003 1:07 AM
>Message-id: <john-30010...@m-0-104.docsis.hbci.com>
>
>
>Funny that the 'art' in the eye of the artist often isn't recognized until
>his eyes and all the rest of him has become worm food.
...Which only goes to show that most worms have better "taste" than most art
critics and art audiences - and even then, some find great art hard to digest
unless its on a coffee mug or on a placematt.
"Give your life for art and you too can end up as worm food and a placematt -
if you're 'lucky'" - how enchanting! ;-) --- NOT!
This post is...
Š 2003 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and worms) Reserved
Regards and Bon Ape tit!,
Lewis Lang
>From: mr_ma...@hotmail.com (Jim)
>Date: Thu, Jan 30, 2003 8:13 PM
>Message-id: <84613fb.03013...@posting.google.com>
>
>Is it a question of good photography or popular photographs. It seems
>to me that
>most of these threads are a popularity contest. I'm om this news group
>photo.net and photosig. I have submitted photos photo.net that got
>very good scores (well the best for me) and then put the same photos
>on photosig and
>they weretrashed. I then took top photos from photsig and put them on
>photo
>net and they were trashed. I then went to my website and picked a few
>that got the highest number of hit and they were trashed on both
>phot.net and photosig.
>
>So, which were good photograhs. God only knows. I do know which are my
>favorites. I also have had problems with one or two (ha, ha, ha),
>pointed
>out which have improved me as a photographer, which is what I was
>really
>after.
>
>So, what makes a good photograph. One that a lot of people enjoy.
>Doesn't
>mean that different groups of people are going to come to the same
>conclusions.
>
>Jim
A lot of people enjoy both Ansel Adams's photographs as well as "Dogs Playing
Poker". They're both popular because they both have popular subject matter. But
popularity doesn't necessarily make or equal art. About (rough guess) half of
Ansel's work that I've seen (in museum shows in Santa Barbara as well as down
in Florida, I believe) falls into art, the rest falls into the category of
giant pretty boring black and white postcards, not art just technique and
imagery of popular subject matter landscapes. And even then, some of the
technique was pure lousy so that didn't even redeem it (giant dust/hairs on
giant prints) - makes me wonder who was the printer or whether they forced his
muscless somehow through electrical shock to do enough motor function to make
incredibly bad prints. Bleccch! The only thing worse I've seen is Annican't's
images (I dare not enoble them to call them photographs).
Taste and popularity definitely do play important parts in the acceptance and
love (or hate) of an image. If we had never seen the (staged, I believe) photo
of the men raising the U.S. flag over Iwo Jima would we be as fond of its more
than half a century later's echo of that image in Thomas Franklin's three
firemen raising the U.S. flag at the WTC? Both are very good to excellent
photographs but much of what is accepted as art may be un/conscious
reflections/echos of what we already have seen, amplifying their popularity and
their acceptance as "art" whether that art be high art or pop culture art.
W. Eugene Smith's work, particularly his death bed vigil (from the "Spanish
Village" photo essay) and the pieta-like mom bathing her deformed daughter
(from the "Minimata" series) echo/have a very Rembrandtesque quality to them
with the way their faces and/or bodies emerge from the darkness in a very
theatrical lighting as if he were trying to remake "Drapiers of the Syndics
Guild" (right title name) or somesuch. Even Rembrandt probably borrowed his
lighting/painting style from the contemporaries of his time much in the same
way some commercials borrow from films and fine art in the way the camera will
jerkily pan about to imply a handheld documentary sense of reality as it
happens that has become almost a cliche in its over use by now.
Makes me wonder if we'll ever see (whether staged or captured candidly) a
famous photo in the future that strangely echoes Andy Warhol's soup can
pictures ;-) (hopefully a photo that won't be tied to a war or act of terrorism
as in the Iwo Jema and WTC photos mentioned earlier.
But in answer to the threads question, beyond taste and popularity and
technique (how well done a photo was executed as oppsed to higher qualities of
"goodness"/artistic qualities, most _sensitive_/aware people can recognise
qualities of art/"goodness" in a photo - agreeing on what those qualities are
or agreeing w/ others whether those qualities make that photograph good (or
even art) _in their eyes_ is another matter entirely. One man's Iwo Jema is
another man's Annican't dog crapping photo, some people love Van Gogh's work
(its thought and emotion as well its style/execution) while another artist I
used to know said she thought he was "a bad drawer" and couldn't get past his
lack of technically perfect drawing (she preferred Dali much better/over Van
Gogh, I believe)... as in photography, I love Meatyard's and Camron's and
LeClerge (I forget his name temporarilly, he took photos as a child of Belle
Epoc women, his family and early 20th cars whose wheels turned into ellipses
because of a vertical camera shutter/panning?) work but others may find them
just primitive snapshots. Lewis Carroll (of Alice in Wonderland's fame) and
Jerome Ducrot (unknown to most people, did fashion and people photographs for
Vogue/Harpers Bazzar in the 60's that were (and still are) full of life and
character) are also a magnificent photographers who I don't think get their
just dues/appreciated _enough_. Public taste and acceptance/popularity is a
poor barometer of what is or may be good in a photograph - use your eyes/mind
to see what others can't or are too unwilling or lazy to see. In photography,
"eye"ronically, there's more there than meets the eye.
This post is...
Š 2003 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and soup cans) Reserved
Regards,
Lewis Lang
>>From: "Gregg" juri...@teleport.com
>
>
>>It's "all" in the eye of the beholder, just like everything else
>>
>>Annika1980's ceiling is another man's floor, so to speak ...
>
>
> Ain't no ceiling on my talent, baby!
Because you have not talent, baby, you don't even have the talent of a baby,
"baby"! Or should I call you D(60)r. Evil baby, baby?
Q.G. de Bakker
> Unless, of course, you are being paid by that other person to please them.
Getting paid for doing something does not automatically mean you are doing
what you want to do. And even less that you're doing things the way you want
to do things. ;-)
Dennis O'Connor
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030131035144...@mb-fs.aol.com...
Robert Feinman
appreciation, look at the gallery scene. For example, there is a upcoming
auction at Swan gallery for a Julia Cameron picture with an estimated price of
about $20,000. Once a photographer has been *certified great* by the art scene
the sky is the limit.
Patrick L. wrote:
> In my previous "how to meter this shot" thread, which another fellow
> restarted, I note that there were posters who admired the shot, and
> others who trashed it.
>
> No doubt there are obvious stinko shots that most, perhaps, would
> toss, but there seems to be a definite area of photography where
> quality is, like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder.
>
--
Robert D Feinman
robertd...@netscape.net
Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramic Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com
Neuman - Ruether
>Patrick L. wrote:
>> In my previous "how to meter this shot" thread, which another fellow
>> restarted, I note that there were posters who admired the shot, and
>> others who trashed it.
>>
>> No doubt there are obvious stinko shots that most, perhaps, would
>> toss, but there seems to be a definite area of photography where
>> quality is, like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder.
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:18:56 -0500, Robert Feinman
<robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>If you want to see a disconnect between the "quality" of the photo and the
>appreciation, look at the gallery scene. For example, there is a upcoming
>auction at Swan gallery for a Julia Cameron picture with an estimated price of
>about $20,000. Once a photographer has been *certified great* by the art scene
>the sky is the limit.
Um, being an admirer of JC's technically rather crude
images (and of Bill Brandt's often technically-poor but
technically-appropriate images, and sometimes even of
Cartier-Bresson's techniically-terrible-and-technically-
inappropriate images [as seen in the originals, not in
the carefully-corrected reproductions...;-]), $20k seems
rather modest compared with the outrageously-inflated
prices for some art. I think there oughta be a legal
"cap" of mebbe $100k for ANY single piece of art. It
is hard for me to conceive of any piece of art, no
matter what it is, of having a true worth of, say,
$40,000,000 - there isn't that much pleasure/appreciation
in the universe, let alone in one painting...! ;-)
David Ruether
rp...@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
Hey, check out www.visitithaca.com too...!
Neuman - Ruether
And the best the artist could get "pre-death" was $5,
for some of his images, but after the gallery/museum
establishment are done with the work "post-death",
the value somehow rises to the mult-million dollar
range... But, then, it can go the other way: those who
are in life good-salesmen or are in the art-establishment
(and whose work can command high prices and great
attention while such is still useful to the "artist")
may be forgotten in death, with their work considered
not very worthy, once the artificial support is gone...;-)
TP
>Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
>> Patrick L. wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>Comments?
>>
>> Some people detest brussels sprouts, others love them.
>> Why would photography be different?
>
>And some of us like brussels sprouts, but not warmed over for the 100th
>time in bad light. :)
Who would know? Because they taste like that even when fresh!
TP
>In my previous "how to meter this shot" thread, which another fellow
>restarted, I note that there were posters who admired the shot, and
>others who trashed it.
>
>No doubt there are obvious stinko shots that most, perhaps, would
>toss, but there seems to be a definite area of photography where
>quality is, like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder.
>
>Comments?
Like anything else, the beauty of a photograph is entirely in the eyes
of a beholder.
The value of a beholder's comments varies extremely widely, depending
on who that beholder is. When the photographer *is* the beholder,
there is no value whatsoever in the beholder's comments. You cannot
objectively judge your own work.
Perhaps the ultimate arbiter is whether people like your work enough
to pay good money for it.
Neuman - Ruether
<doco...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>One needs to master the medium before breaking the rules... Picasso, for
>example, could draw and paint like a Michangelo, and did for a number of
>years, before he went out and broke the rules of perspective, becoming
>Picasso... The shortest route for any of us to become a master of
>photography is to first, master the medium...
>
>Denny
I have never "subscribed" to this view...;-)
Train a "hack" to be a hack, and hack work
is the most likely outcome (with vision likely
suppressed in the rote); encourage "vision"
(even at the expense of technique), and the
possible outcome is art; I would rather listen
to someone who understands the music play the
piano badly then listen to technically superb
"playing of the notes" by someone with no
sense of the music (though when both appropriate
technique and great vision are present, WOW!!!).
Technique can be learned/improved-with-time
to meet the needs of vision; vision is fragile
and needs immediate attention. I used to teach
photography, and it always amazed me what a
high percentage of students "had something to
say" photographically - though "common sense"
tells us few become artists. Could this be
due to our insistence upon learning
standard technique before we have something
solid for it to serve, and emptiness is the
result?
Gordon Moat
activities. Technique can always be improved, or practised. Vision is often
spontaneous.
Mastering the medium in painting is working oils properly. Even after a
couple decades into his painting career, Picasso was using techniques that
caused some of his works to decay quickly. Whether this was choice, or lack
of knowledge of proper technique, has not been recorded. Some very creative
works of his are only known from a few photos taken near the time some of
those works were completed.
Drawing techniques are quite valuable foundations to build upon. In fact the
word "foundations" is used by nearly all art schools for their beginning
classes. Those beginning classes provide the rules, and techniques. They are
merely a "foundation" upon which to build ideas, and share your vision.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
stan
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
YEEESSS! A very good point. Do a studio shoot of a series of manuals for a day.
You will wish for anything!
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
Dennis O'Connor
"Vision" that is handicapped by exposure so bad you can't print the
negative, or the lens cap is left on, or the strap is in front of the lens,
or failing to get the film leader hooked, or the ASA is not set properly, or
the lens is a 20mm and the flash is set for telephoto, is not genius, or an
artist, or a talent... It's just a stumble bum with a camera...
No "talent' ever walked in off the street, jumped into a Winston car and
ripped off a 200 mph run at the track...
No talent ever free climbed El Capitan with no training...
No first year surgical resident ever walked into the surgery the first day
and did an unassisted choledochojejuneostomy just because he had talent...
There are no pictures hanging at MOMA done by someone who never had any
training or practice..
No one has ever picked up a golf club for the first time and qualified for
the ProAm...
No one ever designed a bridge or a skyscraper and had it built just because
they had talent...
Moxart had talent, he had genius, and he had training by the best people in
the music business of tha ttime... He mastered the medium first...
Your argument doesn't wash... Standards are just that, standard skills
necessary to function adequately... You cannot play poker without knowing
the standards, i.e. rules..., or use a computer, or develop a roll of film..
Master the medium, then become a genius...
Denny
"Neuman - Ruether" <rp...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:3e3fa0db...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
John Stafford
Neuman - Ruether wrote:
> [...] I think there oughta be a legal
> "cap" of mebbe $100k for ANY single piece of art.
> [...]
No. $100k for any work done by a self-admitted socialist. The rest of us
are to be free of such constraints.
Gregory L. Hansen
Dennis O'Connor <doco...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>Sorry, total disagreement here...
>"Vision" that is handicapped by exposure so bad you can't print the
>negative, or the lens cap is left on, or the strap is in front of the lens,
>or failing to get the film leader hooked, or the ASA is not set properly, or
>the lens is a 20mm and the flash is set for telephoto, is not genius, or an
>artist, or a talent... It's just a stumble bum with a camera...
>No "talent' ever walked in off the street, jumped into a Winston car and
>ripped off a 200 mph run at the track...
>No talent ever free climbed El Capitan with no training...
>No first year surgical resident ever walked into the surgery the first day
>and did an unassisted choledochojejuneostomy just because he had talent...
>There are no pictures hanging at MOMA done by someone who never had any
>training or practice..
>No one has ever picked up a golf club for the first time and qualified for
>the ProAm...
>No one ever designed a bridge or a skyscraper and had it built just because
>they had talent...
I might also add that nobody has ever made a profound impact on physics,
or really any impact at all, unless they'd first studied and mastered what
came before. I only mention that because I've seen so many people try to
overturn one theory or another with little more than a quick reading of _A
Brief History of Time_, sometimes some high school algebra, and endless
references to "common sense" and "REALITY".
Neuman - Ruether
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:43:59 -0500, "Dennis O'Connor"
<doco...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>Sorry, total disagreement here...
[...long list of "non-art" professions deleted...]
>There are no pictures hanging at MOMA done by someone who never had any
>training or practice..
Well, as a point of information, I did walk into the
MOMA one day, as a kid with no photographic education
whatsoever, and sold the museum not one, but two of my
photos (printed on, of all things, "silk"-textured photo
paper...;-).
And, I have taught photography (and film, and electronic
music) as "art" at the college level, with no formal
"training" in any of these (Thank goodness! You should
see what mind-numbing stuff passes for education in the
local art departments...!;-), so I may have some "feel"
for what is important in art education (which is QUITE
different from engineering, math, etc. - though the
best work in some of science fields often seems to be
done by those without "standard" educations...;-). In
teaching, I considered it very important to bring along
the student's ability to "see" *at the same time as*
the student learned some of the basics of technique.
As a student, I was always most annoyed that instruction
in math, for instance, taught rules and processes
without ever putting them into the context of the field
itself, leaving the rote as mostly useless nonsense
(with no "vision" encouraged at all...;-).
If you read what I wrote above, you should see that
I'm not advocating *no* technique, but *appropriate*
technique - which often may be mistaken for the former
by those with too rigid a view of what may be
acceptable... But, as I said, *IF I MUST CHOOSE*, I
prefer to experience art produced by those with more
vision than technical ability, rather than the other
way around...
Neuman - Ruether
If you cannot judge your own work, you are unable to
assemble your best work, unable to select those pieces
that may represent your own vision (and not the "comfy
cliche"), unable, really, to present anything publicly.
This does not "jibe" with reality - many people have this
ability...;-) As for money being the determinant of quality,
I guess that places Van Gogh's work well below that of
Karsh's, given the sales-rate and size of payments for the
initial sales of the items produced...;-)
cerebros
news:ezWZ9.3007$wd2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> restarted, I note that there were posters who admired the shot, and
> others who trashed it.
>
> No doubt there are obvious stinko shots that most, perhaps, would
> toss, but there seems to be a definite area of photography where
> quality is, like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder.
I've certainly found that people I know who aren't generally into
photography, have been far more enthusiastic about some of my own photos
than I have been myself.
I've also found many times, when flipping through photo mags, where shots
from photographers with far more experience than I leave me wondering why
they'd pressed the shutter release, never mind submitted the photo for
publication. Sure, exposure wise I can't fault them, but the subject and
composition don't have anything about them that would make me give them more
than a fleeting glance.
A case of horses for courses I suppose
TP
>If you cannot judge your own work, you are unable to
>assemble your best work, unable to select those pieces
>that may represent your own vision (and not the "comfy
>cliche"), unable, really, to present anything publicly.
>This does not "jibe" with reality
That is because you have extended a logical argument
to a quite illogical conclusion.
Maybe you can't judge your own work!
;-)
J Stafford
t...@noemailthanks.com wrote:
The camera always points at the photographer. Every photographer judges
his own work. The issue is the differences of judgement in terms of
Realms.
Suffice to say, the Realm must be consdidered, defined, in order to have
any meaningful discourse. To whom is one presenting the image and what is
it saying to the particular realm?
If we were to exploit the Public Realm to measure succcess in terms of
greatest exposure and return then he would be making Jesus and Elvis
images on black velvet. If you want to measure the meaningful contribution
of a photo, then police forensic images are probably right up there. Okay,
that's silly, correct? Yes, but no sillier than claiming "great
photographs" without understanding the metric of the realm. Often the
realm is just so presumed that one doesn't consider it, for example Ansel
Adams' works, and that is a _deep and fundamental_ oversight.
What realm do you presume? The emotional (romantic) relm? The
intellectual? The evidentiary (forensic, documentary)? Editorial?
Technical?
Patrick L.
"J Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote in message
news:john-01020...@m-0-104.docsis.hbci.com...
>
> What realm do you presume? The emotional (romantic) relm? The
> intellectual? The evidentiary (forensic, documentary)? Editorial?
> Technical?
For me, only one realm is important, and it is that of the casting
directors and agents who ultimately decide if my client's headshots
(most of whom are actors) are worthy of their consideration.
Patrick L.
J Stafford
"Patrick L." <nice...@ifyoucangetit.com> wrote:
> For me, only one realm is important, and it is that of the casting
> directors and agents who ultimately decide if my client's headshots
> (most of whom are actors) are worthy of their consideration.
Good example. As an aside, have you noticed any change in trends in what
the directors and agents expect, for example in terms of lighting?
Patrick L.
I don't think they have a particular expectation regarding lighting,
as long as it is not gimmicky or misrepresent the actor. Portraiture
techniques which overly idealize the actor are a big no no.
However, I do note that in L.A, natural lighting is the big trend,
now, though I suspect that this trend is being driven by more of that
trendy California naturalism stuff than the expectations of casting
directors and agents.
Patrick L.
Neuman - Ruether
I'm not a Socialist; I'm a Regulated-Capitalist...;-)
Lewis Lang
>From: TP t...@noemailthanks.com
>Date: Fri, Jan 31, 2003 4:04 PM
>Message-id: <3c7l3vcjbmjfnac2q...@4ax.com>
>
>"Patrick L." <nice...@ifyoucangetit.com> wrote:
>
>>In my previous "how to meter this shot" thread, which another fellow
>>restarted, I note that there were posters who admired the shot, and
>>others who trashed it.
>>
>>No doubt there are obvious stinko shots that most, perhaps, would
>>toss, but there seems to be a definite area of photography where
>>quality is, like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder.
>>
>>Comments?
>
>
>Like anything else, the beauty of a photograph is entirely in the eyes
>of a beholder.
>
Hi Tony:
True, as are appreciation of a photograph's other non-beauty/non-formalistic
qualities (mystery, conceptualism, etc.)... But its value doesn't stop there,
also just because a photos beauty and other qualities aren't appreciated during
that photographer's lifetime doesn't mean those qualities aren't present even
if not immediately evident. Like Impressionism and other art movemements (and
artists and photographers that followed) it sometimes takes a while for the
public to catch up and appreciate (if ever) what a photographer or an artist
was trying to convey. Sometimes others may never catch up at all and only the
artist (and possibly a few close artist/non-artist friends) are all that
appreciate the art during that artist's lifetime (substitute the word/term
"photographer" for "artist" and that equally applies).
>The value of a beholder's comments varies extremely widely, depending
>on who that beholder is.
Also true.
When the photographer *is* the beholder,
>there is no value whatsoever in the beholder's comments. You cannot
>objectively judge your own work.
>
I disagree here. Total objectivity is not needed to see the obvious. Or even
the not so obvious. Some shots are self-evident that they work or don't work in
terms of composition, emotion, even whether the technique level is appropriate
for the aesthetics of the shot, etc.
Though there are some shots that can make you wonder why others like them (or
don't) much more than you (you all, not just you in particular).
Subjectivity does not exclude correct judgement (of the value of the shot(s)),
though some times it may cloud that judgement.
>Perhaps the ultimate arbiter is whether people like your work enough
>to pay good money for it.
I don't know about people liking something being the _ultimate_ arbiter of any
work (lots of people like those dogs playing cards shots, still that doesn't
make it valuable, just valuable to them), however I am of the firm belief that
while _sincere_ complements are nice, one test or one of many "arbiters" of
sincerity, ironically enough (since sincerity w/o action borders on mere lip
service since anybody can claim, rightfully or not, that they like something,
but liking something enough/appreciating its aesthetic/other values enough to
buy it is a whole 'nother story that hits close to the heart/core of sincerety
- their wallets), is for people to literally "put their wallets where their
mouths are". Anybody can claim they like your work, only the action of paying
for that work (buying it), proves it was/is of at least some value to them,
monetary value if not aesthetic or other value to them. (Some people literally
buy art/photos merely as decor/"expensive paint" to fill holes (empty spaces)
in the wall and to match the color of their couches and not for overly artisitc
concerns).
This post is...
Š 2003 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and subjectivities ;-)) Reserved
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Jan 31, 2003 4:30 PM
>Message-id: <3e3fa0db...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
Amen/I completely agree :-)