Photography as Art
Morton Klotz
better, so here goes.
I recently saw the wonderful van Gogh exhibit at the Los Angeles County
Museum. (I believe it is closing this week so if you are nearby and have
not yet seen it I strongly urge you to go.) I have never in my life been
so moved by a picture as I was by a few of these wonderful paintings. I
have seen a lot of fine photographs and I think that I have made a few
myself, but I would gladly give all the photographs in the world to own
his Wheatfield with Crows.
So I am rather discouraged. Am I wasting my time? Should I take up
basket weaving? Or should I just accept the fact that photography is a
minor art and go on from there? I look forward to your opinions.
--
Morton Klotz, Placerville, CA, USA
"We men of science may be momentarily daunted, but this unending quest
for truth will drive us on to eventual victory."
Terry and the Pirates cartoon strip, January, 1947
Mike McDonald
Morton Klotz <mkl...@innercite.com> writes:
> This is off topic but I don't know of another group that it would fit
> better, so here goes.
>
> I recently saw the wonderful van Gogh exhibit at the Los Angeles County
> Museum. (I believe it is closing this week so if you are nearby and have
> not yet seen it I strongly urge you to go.) I have never in my life been
> so moved by a picture as I was by a few of these wonderful paintings. I
> have seen a lot of fine photographs and I think that I have made a few
> myself, but I would gladly give all the photographs in the world to own
> his Wheatfield with Crows.
>
> So I am rather discouraged. Am I wasting my time? Should I take up
> basket weaving? Or should I just accept the fact that photography is a
> minor art and go on from there? I look forward to your opinions.
Are you any good at basket weaving? Does it bring you pleasure and
satisfaction? :-)
Why do you consider photography to be a "minor art"? It's a different form
of art than painting. I wouldn't consider it minor though.
What in particular did you like about "Wheatfield with Crows"? Composition?
Texture? Use of color? Instead of looking at looking at it as a source of
discouragement, look at it as a challange and a goal. Try to see if you can
capture in photography what it is about "Wheatfild with Crows" that moved you
so. It may take you a long time to achieve the result you want but so what?
It's the journey that counts! And don't give up trying until they start
shoveling dirt into your grave!
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
CWood 7000
>Museum. (I believe it is closing this week so if you are nearby and have
>not yet seen it I strongly urge you to go.) I have never in my life been
>so moved by a picture as I was by a few of these wonderful paintings. I
>have seen a lot of fine photographs and I think that I have made a few
>myself, but I would gladly give all the photographs in the world to own
>his Wheatfield with Crows.
>
>So I am rather discouraged. Am I wasting my time? Should I take up
>basket weaving? Or should I just accept the fact that photography is a
>minor art and go on from there? I look forward to your opinions.
>
I have been to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam and while I can appreciate the
talent that created the art, they don't grab me the way some other paintings do
or in the manner that some photographs do.
I think we all react/respond differently to everything around us...simply the
way we humans are.
DO1
>
> This is off topic but I don't know of another group that it would fit
> better, so here goes.
>
> Museum. (I believe it is closing this week so if you are nearby and have
> not yet seen it I strongly urge you to go.) I have never in my life been
> so moved by a picture as I was by a few of these wonderful paintings. I
> have seen a lot of fine photographs and I think that I have made a few
> myself, but I would gladly give all the photographs in the world to own
> his Wheatfield with Crows.
>
> So I am rather discouraged. Am I wasting my time? Should I take up
> basket weaving? Or should I just accept the fact that photography is a
> minor art and go on from there? I look forward to your opinions.
>
> Morton Klotz, Placerville, CA, USA
> "We men of science may be momentarily daunted, but this unending quest
> for truth will drive us on to eventual victory."
> Terry and the Pirates cartoon strip, January, 1947
Whether you paint, sculpt, basketweave, or photograph...
create...create...create...and let the "critics" argue about
major and minor....all things are relative. Compared to
Creation...all other art is minor. Science does not encompass all
truth.
"He who can does...he who cannot teaches." Mark Twain
Roger N Clark
Amsterdam (as well as the Louve and many others). What amazes
me is the depth perception, rule of thirds, lighting, etc that
very early dutch painters expressed in their work. Any photographer could
learn many lessons studying those
paintings.
But that doesn't detract from photography. Each has it's own
place. One is not better, just different. Examine what
you liked best about a painting, and if it moved you that
much, it as a goal to achieve something similar in
photography.
Some scenes I've been able to photograph and make look better
than being there, others I've tried and tried and never come close to
matching the real thing. For example, I've never seen
a photograph that matched the grandeur of the Tetons (from
anyone--no offense--that is just the way I feel). I've stood
there in awe trying to comprehend what makes it so amazing.
I've tried to photograph that awe. While I've obtained some
images as spectacular as some I've seen by others, I've
yet to capture what it is that makes me feel as good as
being there. Perhaps I never will. But I'll have fun trying
and I'll learn along the way.
Roger Clark
Gngphoto
reproduce not only what is there but what he sees is there and he perceives is
there. Photographers have long been trying to capture this effect and have done
so in many cases wonderfully. Years of practice and mastering exposure,
developing, and printing, have yielded incredible results from some of the best
known photographers.Yet they still do not come close to the beauty of "The
Painting".
So we photographers have accepted and will repeat, that we are not painters,
we have a skill with a different piece of equipment than that of the painter.
Through the equipment, we are limited to what we can capture, although if time
is of no essence than we can wait years for that perfect picture.
The photographer has a place of its own, not only in the world of art but also
in the world that strives for pictures, where a painter cannot go.
Unfortunately many of us who have made photography our business, does not have
alot of time to truly enjoy the "Art of Photography" and instead enjoy the
benefit of photography as a business. Do not get me wrong I look forward to
every job that I do, but I do wish I had more of an eye for the art than I do
for the job.Starving artist I'd rather not be, so I enjoy it when I can.
Mark Twain was greatly mistaken and truly arrogant to say, "Does who can do,
does who cannot teach".
You must know the fundamentals and be able to put them to use to teach
anything. Not everyone can teach, anybody can be taught to do something.
Art however, goes beyond just learning, for the artist:or teaching by the
teacher. The reason why this country is in trouble, is that this country does
not appreciate its men and women who teach.
George
P.S. I am one of those that cannot teach, but can do. I have tried but just
cannot be a teacher. It's here that I have learned that teaching is a special
skill.
Steve Shapiro
Or, set it up in a wheat field and wait until the crows come home.
If you don't want to break into the museum and slash that one (in the manner
of frustrated dutch artists); look at the paintings of the Hudson River
School -- more Dutch stuff. Stuff ... heck, you can smoke their cigars.
SS
Roger N Clark <rnc...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:371416C9...@uswest.net...
Allan Tingey
an easel with oil paints and canvases lying around in various
stages of completion. If you turn left you will find a table
with watercolors and blocks of paper in various stages of
completion. Give it a try.
Allan Tingey
Andy Schmitt
another form?
Could van Gogh paint a Mozart fugue? Nothing visual can cause me to
"transcend these mortal coils" as a fugue. Combining a fugue with a visual
art, be it Adams (Ansel), van Gogh or a piece of Chippendale furniture is
the pan ultimate experience. Keep working at your art & enjoying ALL of them
for what they are...small representations of the beauty of the
universe...oops, I think I've said too much...
...How 'bout that Dektol??
andy schmitt
Morton Klotz wrote in message <37137DFA...@innercite.com>...
skgrimes
Andy Schmitt <aa...@home.com> wrote in message news:dHOR2.213$314...@news.rdc1.nj.home.com...
S.K. GRIMES -- FEINMECHANIK -- MACHINE WORK FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS
+ Lenses mounted into shutters.
+ Shutters repaired, restored.
+ For more info-- http://www.skgrimes.com.
(updated 4-5-99)
mailto:skgr...@skgrimes.com
>
>
Deirdre Wiseman
subjective to your personal choice. Draw, paint, photograph, sculpt,
write, dance, sing, act, whatever. Do whatever that inner voice tells
you you need to do. Your only regret will be if you do not follow that
inner voice.
Archy E. Wiseman
Lee Carmichael
that one instead of the van Gogh exhibit. Maybe if I am back to LA in the not too distant future
I will see that one also. I agree with Mr. Schmitt's assessment of art. Keep at it if your inner
voice demands it.
skgrimes wrote:
--
As usual,
Lee Carmichael
mailto:cl...@flash.net
check out http://www.pgtopg.com/filmbytes
SPECTRUM
Didn't C.Manson think the same way ?
--
Regards,
John S. Douglas Spectrum Photographic
Inc
Photographer & Darkroom Wizard ! Black & White our specialty !
WORLD FIELD PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION
http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Deirdre Wiseman <admwi...@mailhost.day.ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:37180205...@mailhost.day.ameritech.net...
Paul Butzi
<mkl...@innercite.com> wrote:
>This is off topic but I don't know of another group that it would fit
>better, so here goes.
>
>I recently saw the wonderful van Gogh exhibit at the Los Angeles County
>Museum. (I believe it is closing this week so if you are nearby and have
>not yet seen it I strongly urge you to go.) I have never in my life been
>so moved by a picture as I was by a few of these wonderful paintings. I
>have seen a lot of fine photographs and I think that I have made a few
>myself, but I would gladly give all the photographs in the world to own
>his Wheatfield with Crows.
I'm not entirely convinced that you can compare art in this way -
"This piece of art is *better* than that piece of art." What
does/would it mean? Which is better - Rodin's 'Burghers of Calais'
or Mozart's 'Flute Concerto in C'? Why? Which is better -
Shakespeare's "The Tempest" or the ceiling in the Sistine chapel?
Which is better, Weston's "Pepper #30" or Frost's "Two Tramps at Mud
Time? How about Beethoven's 'Moonlight' or the cave paintings at
Lasceaux?
As someone (E.B. White?) put it, there's no such thing as good
art and bad art. There's just Art, and damn little of it.
But even if we grant that you *could* make useful comparisons
like this in some global context, what would it mean to us as
individual artists? Should we stop writing piano sonatas simply
because we're unable to match Beethoven? Stop playing flute because
we're not as good as Rampal? Or even worse, should we stop making
photographs because we're not as good as Van Gogh?
All we can do is make the art we feel a need to make. Make it the
best you can, and move on to the next piece. The function of most of
your art is to enable you to make the *next* piece of art. If the
goal was to make the world's best work of art, there would be exactly
one successful artist, and billions of unsuccessful ones, and that's
clearly just not the case. There'd also be one successful work of
art, and all those galleries and museums would have copies of it
instead of all those other works.
So you can't make a piece that stands with the best works of Van Gogh.
Well, Van Gogh can't make work like yours, either, in part because
he's dead, dead, dead. But even if he were alive, he'd be making
*his* art, and you'd be making *yours*.
Remember, too, that *every* artist ends up being judged by just
a handful of works, and the pieces that led to the making of that
handful are by and large ignored. Ever seen Weston's somewhat
less than famous "Pepper #1, Pepper #2, ... Pepper #29"? The point
here isn't that Weston wasn't discouraged when he looked at the
negative for Pepper #29 - I'm pretty sure he was. But he kept on
going, and Pepper #30 was the result. But people *act* as if Weston
just popped that damn pepper into the damn funnel and clicked off
Pepper #30 with the first sheet of film. After all, Weston
was *GREAT*. We don't think of him beating his head against the
wall while he photographed his dinner, but surely he did. The image
of the *real* artist is that the art happens without effort or
struggle. We have to struggle, so clearly we're not real artists,
so clearly we should just give it up, right? Wrong. Real artists
struggle, too. Pepper #1. Damn. Pepper #2. Damn. Pepper #3. Damn
it to hell. Pepper #4. Damn, damn, damn. Pepper #5. Damn...
>
>So I am rather discouraged.
Hey, if you're going to get discouraged, don't butt in line, here.
The 'discouraged artist' line starts way, way back there. Miles back.
It's not surprising that you're discouraged, really. Unless you're
of very limited vision (and I suspect very very strongly that you're
not) you find that the finished work just never quite measures up to
the expectations you had when you started. Hey - I'll bet that at
the end of painting "Wheatfield with Crows" old Vincent looked at it,
and thought along the lines of "Well, it's not bad, except for this
corner here, where I didn't get the brush strokes quite right. And
that black is still just a tiny bit redder than I wanted - I thought
it would dry bluer. Those crows look like V's. I made the strokes on
the wheat too wide. Maybe I should chuck this painting thing and
go make soup instead. I'm never gonna be as good as that bastard
Caravaggio. How the hell did he make things have *shape* like that?"
A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?
Truer words were never written. (But the fact that Browning wrote
them doesn't mean we should stop writing poetry, does it?)
> Am I wasting my time?
No.
> Should I take up
>basket weaving?
You think you'll never make a photograph that compares favorably
with "Wheatfield with Crows". Do you think you're going to make
a better basket than "Wheatfield with crows"?
> Or should I just accept the fact that photography is a
>minor art and go on from there? I look forward to your opinions.
I think you should accept that photography is *different* from
painting, and that you're *different* from Van Gogh, and that
as a result, your art will be *different*, too, and move on from
there, yes.
I also think that the doubts you have are probably doubts that
every artist has ever had, regardless of medium and regardless
of when they lived. Well, maybe not Mozart, the lucky bastard.
Look, there's a book you should read: "Art and Fear" by Bayles
and Orland. It's probably the best book written on this subject.
If you read it and like it, and are of a mystic bent, try "The
Artist's Way" by Cameron. Also, "The Grace of Great Things"
by Grudin. But don't let reading them cut into time behind
the camera, or time in the darkroom.
I don't know what you mean by 'minor' art, so I can't comment on
that. I will say that I think it sounds very strongly like
a content free phrase, though.
-Paul
--
Web site under (slow) construction at http://www.halcyon.com/butzi/
Thomas A Ball
DO1 wrote in message <3713F4...@fyiowa.infi.net>...
>Morton Klotz wrote:
>>
>> This is off topic
Nope, see Steigliz et. al. in Camera Works
>> I recently saw the wonderful van Gogh exhibit at the Los Angeles County
>> Museum. (I believe it is closing this week so if you are nearby and have
>> not yet seen it I strongly urge you to go.) I have never in my life been
>> so moved by a picture as I was by a few of these wonderful paintings. I
>> have seen a lot of fine photographs and I think that I have made a few
>> myself, but I would gladly give all the photographs in the world to own
>> his Wheatfield with Crows.
Though, he only made $75 in painting sales during his entire lifetime (The
Rooster- sold to a Long Island maven)
>>
>> So I am rather discouraged. Am I wasting my time? Should I take up
>> basket weaving? Or should I just accept the fact that photography is a
>> minor art and go on from there? I look forward to your opinions.
Van Gogh was discouraged... we create because we must.
>>
>> --
On the other hand, art critic Arthur Danto has said that "Art is Dead" or
more accurately that it is "approaching one of its ends" -- namely the
realistic replication of that which we see. At the turn of the century,
Steichen was furious with Kodak & what has come to be called "the memory
market" -- most photographs are not art.
Charles Nolan
OUT AND BE YOUR OWN ARTIST AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE SMALL THING'S!!!!!
We each have a gift to make something beautiful in our own field's
without worring about something we have no control over. Anyway it's a
different form of art........
Dan Downing
Thomas A Ball wrote in message ...
>On the other hand, art critic Arthur Danto has said that "Art is Dead" or
>more accurately that it is "approaching one of its ends" -- namely the
>realistic replication of that which we see. At the turn of the century,
>Steichen was furious with Kodak & what has come to be called "the memory
>market" -- most photographs are not art.
Neither are most paintings!
Dan Downing
Steve Kaiser
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:25:16 -0700, Morton Klotz
><mkl...@innercite.com> wrote:
>
>>This is off topic but I don't know of another group that it would fit
>>better, so here goes.
>>
>>I recently saw the wonderful van Gogh exhibit at the Los Angeles County
>>Museum. (I believe it is closing this week so if you are nearby and have
>>not yet seen it I strongly urge you to go.) I have never in my life been
>>so moved by a picture as I was by a few of these wonderful paintings. I
>>have seen a lot of fine photographs and I think that I have made a few
>>myself, but I would gladly give all the photographs in the world to own
>>his Wheatfield with Crows.
><snip...snip>
>I'm not entirely convinced that you can compare art in this way -
>
>-Paul
Paul...
A very nice, intelligent post! Very well thought out and
insperational...we all have times where we question ourselves and our
"art"...I know I have many times in my short photographic career...and
I'm still a student. I hope you don't mind but I would keep parts of
this post for those times of questions...
Thanks
Steve