What's more important?
Joshua Hakin
1. Technical (shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, focal length, etc.)
2. Compositional (colour, texture, lighting, angle, subject, etc.)
Some photographers may lean more heavily on technical, and still others more
on compositional (of course there are always those who fall into the
"exteme"- 100% devotion to one and not the other)
Question: Where would you personally place the dividing line? Are you a
50/50 person? What is more important to you?
Joshua Hakin
(just for fun!!!)
Mark Bergman
technical are equally important and strives to master both.
"Joshua Hakin" <j.hakin...@odyssey.on.ca> wrote in message
news:iVp87.272320$Z2.32...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Jeff Novick
fits into the compositional, but, it really is its own thing. Without an
'eye', you can be technically perfect and compose images with aplomb, and,
yet, have very boring, well produced, results. The 'eye' is the key element
in what distinguishes one image from another. Having an 'eye' allows one
photographer to notice a shot while another walks by. Can it be taught? I
think it can, although, one would instinctively say it can't. In fact,
there have been widespread studies done on creativity and the findings state
that it is a learned response. I believe it can be taught, but, the real
question is 'can we learn'?
Jeff
"Joshua Hakin" <j.hakin...@odyssey.on.ca> wrote in message
news:iVp87.272320$Z2.32...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Tony Spadaro
don't have an eye. I've met meany people who were expert players of musical
instruments yet had not the slightest bit of music in them, and the same is
true of visual artists - not just photographers.
In a recent thread I mentioned my feelings toward to recognised masters of
the Zone System - Minor White and Brett Weston. Two experts in composition,
both technically great photographers, and both superbe darkroom technicians.
Yet theri pictures are completely empty.
I think I would also add the need for finding one's own path. I look at
a lot of photographer's websites, and I see a lot of stuff beyond
derivitive - it's just plain copied from other photographers. This is a good
way to learn photography, but to show off an Ansel Adams or a Eliot Porter
and call it your own just because you went there and stood in the spot and
snapped the shutter, is plagery. If you re-wrote "To Have and Have Not" word
for word, you wouldn't even get sued - they would just laugh at you.
Worse than the copies of Adams are the copies of "stock" shots.
Greeting card shots of fishing bears and slot canyons, or Alamo Square in
San Francisco, the Houston skyline from across whatever that patch of water
is, etc. I suppose it's okay if you want to be a stock photographer - but
even there you are going to need somethign to set you apart or there is no
reason for anyone to want to be your stock agent - there are already a few
thousand stock shooters out there, why should anyone bother with a new one?
So it's an EYE and a bit of CREATIVITY.
There are two, two things a good photographer needs, an eye and
creativity, and a... There are three, three things, a photographer needs, an
eye, creativity and a camera.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uCt87.221953$qv3.49...@nnrp5-w.sbc.net...
Q.G. de Bakker
As long as one is seeing the two as separate, there is still a lot to be
learned. ;-)
Dilbertdroid
1. Technical (shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, focal length, etc.)
2. Compositional (colour, texture, lighting, angle, subject, etc.)>>>
The premise you base your question on is very flawed.
Photography is highly technical. The technical aspects like perspective,
lighting, shutter speed and aperture all have a direct and controlling impact
on composition--- you can't separate the two. Ansel Adams was a good
example of a master of technique, and his technical expertise is a fundamental
element of his artistic success. You can even say the same about a
photographer who might be called the exact opposite of Adams-- Henri
Cartier-Bresson. Yet, HCB, if you understand how he worked, was just as
consummate a user of technique as Adams, but used in a way that supported his
artistic goals.
Sorry to say, your rhetorical question is almost as poorly crafted a discussion
as one you did earlier. There seems to be a movement that is the photographic
equivalent of hip-hop music, where unskilled young people with plastic cameras
run around with the cry "art is everything" on their lips, snapping away at
whatever suits them. They rarely produce anything that interests anyone
other than their equally clueless peers, because like the infinite number of
monkeys on the infinite number of typewriters, what they produce is accidental
and of no artistic merit. I've juried out thousands of such prints from
exhibition, and after a while, the usual subject matter (the photographers own
boobs or pubic hair or buttocks or those of their friends, tattoos, ugly
gothics who look like cell phone towers, etc.) gets pretty repetitious. At
the same time, a talented photographer (even a beginner just starting to master
technical skills) stands out.
Photography is NOT a free ride. There is no "artistic" mastery without
technical mastery. Period. You get out what you put in.
Mark Schaffer
I started out with photography and my darkroom work in 1975. For many of
these
years I was 80% artistic and almost all of the photography courses I took
off and on
over this time were taught by instructors with a high bend towards the
artistic side.
About five years ago I decided to upgrade my darkroom to color so I took a
color
course at a local community college prior to upgrading my home darkroom. The
instructor for this class was a heavy technician (who also produced very
creative work).
At first I was really turned off by such a heavy handed approach. However,
by mid
semester I could see some rather strong improvements in my darkroom work
(both color and B&W). I was so facinated by this I took another class next
semester
with the same instructor.
Bottom line. Both technical and artistic skills combined togather can only
help you produce
better work. At the end of the day though it is an individual decision on
how a person wants to
approach photography. The only preaching I will do I to say that anybody
serious about
photography needs to take control of their own post production work (i.e.
darkroom or
digital processing.)
It amazes me that people will spend thousands on camera equipment and all of
their spare
time (a precious resource) to capture the perfect image and than turn it
over to someone
else to handle the post production work.
"Joshua Hakin" <j.hakin...@odyssey.on.ca> wrote in message
news:iVp87.272320$Z2.32...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Stelios Zacharias
<tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
> So it's an EYE and a bit of CREATIVITY.
> There are two, two things a good photographer needs, an eye and
>creativity, and a... There are three, three things, a photographer needs, an
>eye, creativity and a camera.
I'd best throw away the nice red uniform now, then!
Cheers,
Stelios Zacharias
JR
dilber...@aol.com (Dilbertdroid) wrote:
What is it with you and Hip-Hop? Lighten up dude.....All your posts
seem to put down something or another....Its ashame because when your
are not giving your very one-sided opinions on the social world, your
photography insight is nice.....
JR
Joshua Hakin
> Photography is highly technical. The technical aspects like perspective,
> lighting, shutter speed and aperture all have a direct and controlling
impact
> on composition--- you can't separate the two. Ansel Adams was a good
> example of a master of technique, and his technical expertise is a
fundamental
> element of his artistic success.
'Technique' is how one uses their personal perception and technical
understanding to create a photograph. And all you've said about A.Adams was
that he was 50/50 in applying both aspects.
>HCB, if you understand how he worked, was just as
> consummate a user of technique as Adams
Again you are saying 50/50?
> Sorry to say, your rhetorical question is almost as poorly crafted a
discussion
> as one you did earlier.
> where unskilled young people with plastic cameras
> run around with the cry "art is everything" on their lips, snapping away
at
> whatever suits them.
How did I imply this?
> Photography is NOT a free ride. There is no "artistic" mastery without
> technical mastery. Period. You get out what you put in.
Really? What about what Tony said about the "eye"? Is he wrong?
What about NGS photographer Sam Abell who admittedly knows little of
technical aspects but is considered a master?
What about, as SHADETREE said, Anne Lebowitz?
It was a simple question that was asking for a personal answer, not an
attempt to generalize, and make every photographer fit into this mold that
you've so lovely built for us. I want to hear from those who refuse to
conform to such thinking of photography-communists and express their
personal approach to the "art"? (can I call it that, sir?) of photography.
Try reading Mark Schaffer's remarks and you will see how to use a little
intelligence in considering such questions as mine. Don't be such a
tight-ass.
Joshua Hakin
(I thought it was for fun)
Steve H
control to be able to express the compositional. Perfect technique is
nothing in and of itself, but it's hard to do anything with the
compositional if the decent image - properly exposed, in focus, etc - is a
rare happy accident in a mass of circular file denizens. In other words,
your number 1 is the toolkit necessary to be able to do your number 2, but
the number 2 is the ultimate objective without which number 1 is pointless.
"Joshua Hakin" <j.hakin...@odyssey.on.ca> wrote in message
news:iVp87.272320$Z2.32...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Dilbertdroid
seem to put down something or another....Its ashame because when your
are not giving your very one-sided opinions on the social world, your
photography insight is nice.....
JR>>>
I think hip-hop is a perfect example of the continuing devolution of our
culture, and is a legitimate analogy to the "dumbing down" of photography.
The fact that my my opinions seem to offend people like you is a continuing
source of both amusement and satisfaction.
Dilbertdroid
intelligence in considering such questions as mine. Don't be such a tight-ass.
Joshua Hakin>>
Since your question displays very little intelligence in the first place,
little intelligence is needed to answer it. Why do you invite discussion and
then get upset when not everyone plays by the narrow rules you seem to have set
for this game? Doesn't that make YOU the tight ass?
Dilbertdroid
understanding to create a photograph. And all you've said about A.Adams was
that he was 50/50 in applying both aspects.>>
What a terrific example of my proposition that YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE. Are
you msxmanic's alter-ego? You make it sound like opening two cans and mixing
ingredients together, or something you would program into a robot.
These "discussion questions" sound like the kind of crap that comes out of
mind-control motivational programs.
Alan Browne
use "empirical" approaches to shooting that get results they want. To be a
good painter, you don't need to understand pigment chemistry. To be a good
photgrapher you don't need to understand the chemistry of film and the
esoterica of lens design. You do need to kow what will get the sought results
... without neccesarily returning to first principles every time...
A greater understanding of the technical side will give the photographer much
more creative latitude and control ... but without the creative or artistic
skills (s)he ain't gonna get far...
As with any profession (or serious pastime), the more you learn of ALL aspects
of it, the more you can potentially get out of it. This is up to the
individual...
Alan
Joshua Hakin wrote:
--
Lert's live longer.
Be A Lert.
Lisa Horton
allows you to do number 2. Number 2 drives the choices you make in
Number 1. They're kind of circular and mutually dependent.
For me personally, I couldn't do Number 2 without the control of
Number 1, but Number 1 is pointless without Number 2.
In my own learning process, I concentrated first on Number 1. I got
to the point where I could produce exquisitely sharp, perfectly
exposed photos that lacked any real emotional impact. So I then
concentrated on Number 2, doing Number 1 on kind of auto-pilot. Once
I got to the point where I knew what I wanted to show and how I wanted
to show it, Number 1 and Number 2 became so hopelessly intertwined
that now I just shoot pictures:)
Lisa
David Littlewood
Spadaro <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> writes
> There are two, two things a good photographer needs, an eye and
>creativity, and a... There are three, three things, a photographer needs, an
>eye, creativity and a camera.
>
Are you a Monty Python fan, Tony?
--
David Littlewood
russbutner
forms, It is 95% feeling and passion and 5% technique.
Arvin Shmedley
Retina
Dilbertdroid wrote:
You're 'CULTURE' is white, and, uptight. Hip Hop is not about white and
uptight! The fact that you offend some people is neither amusing nor
satisfying. Try a little self-inspection and realize that your
'insights' are not very important. :)
Retina
a hell of a foundation to have before the leap into the creative! Aside
from pure genius, I would venture to say it takes at least 10 years of
hard work before any artistic uniqueness can show itself, if ever. Some
people just don't have a creative side. They tend to be analytical,
stiff, conservative. Sort of like, DILBERTROID!!
Jeff
PS-I'm not crazy about the Westons, White, or, most of the F/64 folks.
I do like Imogen Cunningham, and, Adams prints are truly amazing in
person, but, so boring after seeing a few.
Chris Hedley
> I think hip-hop is a perfect example of the continuing devolution of our
> culture, and is a legitimate analogy to the "dumbing down" of photography.
> The fact that my my opinions seem to offend people like you is a continuing
> source of both amusement and satisfaction.
Interesting, that one. Some of the original hip-hop stuff actually wasn't
too bad (and this coming from a crumbly old punk & rock fan!) but the media
has seemed intent on force-feeding the public assorted dumbed down pap of
all genres, admittedly starting out with the more rubbish variety of HH.
Not that the general populace are actually buying into it (in a very literal
sense, except for those who don't seem to know any better) which leaves me
wondering what's the point of all this (profit, I assume, since paying
professionals for their work is expensive)
Chris.
Lewis Lang
From: dilber...@aol.com (Dilbertdroid)
Date: Sat, Jul 28, 2001 1:36 PM
Message-id: <20010728083637...@ng-fl1.aol.com>
Amen and and how. Gothic/Hiphop in garbage out ;-)
Lewis
I've set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want
to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience.
Thanks.
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
Joshua Hakin
I don't understand what you mean. What did I say that shows you this?
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sat, Jul 28, 2001 8:54 PM
>Message-id: <3B63186A...@pacbell.net>
>
>I wouldn't go that far as to say the other 2 aren't worth a damn. It's
>
>a hell of a foundation to have before the leap into the creative! Aside
>
>from pure genius, I would venture to say it takes at least 10 years of
>hard work before any artistic uniqueness can show itself, if ever. Some
>
>people just don't have a creative side. They tend to be analytical,
>stiff, conservative. Sort of like, DILBERTROID!!
>
>Jeff
I'll have to disagree w/ you here Jeff. In my own case I seemed to know
virtually from the get go how to make a good creative people photograph, though
it did take me an additional 5 years to discover my even more creative surreal
side, however I might be an exception to the rule (if there is indeed "a
rule"). As Billy Jeol once said (paraphrasing here) "genius is merely
competence" the more you love and practice and are willing to learn about
something, whether its photography or anything else (being creative,
technqiue, etc.) the more you'll be able to attain it - but there has to be
more than just desire, that desire has to be put to the test and refined by the
fire of action. Whatever you think of his music, Billy Joel started out by
practicing classical piano long before he became a rock and roll
singer/songwriter/composer. Given time and persistance, most anything is
possible for those who really care about what they're doing. Passion ism ore
than one's natural abilities and its not located in the brain or the pants but
within the human heart that strives to be more than what it is, and ironically,
the better you become, the more you become yourself/find your own voice.
Getting back on topic... Its not a matter of percentages. Both the creative and
the technical are intermixed and inter-related and imporatant. You might as
well have music w/o notes or sound (yes, I know some experimental stuff tries
to do such things w/ fugues of silence/etc.). I can neither separate the
creative from the technical aspects of photography any more than I could
unscramble an egg. Could I have some bacon w/those eggs please? Sorry, that
belongs on the "RADIO HOST IS A PIG" thread ;-)/oink!
Denton Mickelson
Tapdance, and Ballroom dancing.
BTW no racial putdown intended here since I consider Jazz, R&B, Rock n Roll,
and Motown to be "real music". It has nothing whatever to do with "Black" or
"White". It has everything to do with talent. You need to loosen up a little
yourself (or is it "chill out").
--
Denny Mickelson
East Greenwich, Rhode Island
"Retina" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3B6315DC...@pacbell.net...
Denton Mickelson
way to go on Number 2 however 8-))
--
Denny Mickelson
East Greenwich, Rhode Island
"Lisa Horton" <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:3B630E98...@lisahorton.net...
Denton Mickelson
--
Denny Mickelson
East Greenwich, Rhode Island
"Retina" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3B63186A...@pacbell.net...
Lewis Lang
>Aside
>from pure genius, I would venture to say it takes at least 10 years of
>hard work before any artistic uniqueness can show itself, if ever.
SNIP
Jeff/etc.:
The long and the short of it is... You can't put a number on it, some people
find their voice/creativity/uniqueness nearly instantly (upon getting involved
w/ photography), others take years, and some never, "genius" has little to do
w/ it - its a process of discovery, and as such is unpredictable.
I found my "voice" a lot sooner than others but I was 28 years old when I did
(I thought rather "old" at the time, but there had been elements of that voice
peeping up here and there for about five years prior to that, I just didn't
recognize them until I literally had a surreal epiphany, at an art show that
showed surrealistic works (mostly paintings and sculpture, not photographs per
se), and realised that conceptual/surrealism is what I wanted to do in
photography - along w/ my people work) and, God willing, I'll be exploring it
the rest of my life...
It takes time, varying amounts, to discover your particular passion and voice
and everybody is different as to when they get to their uniqueness.
Having gone through Brooks Institute of Photography (that's California military
boot camp school for tech weenies) I painfully realise through experience how
putting one (technical) over creative is a recipe for disaster. I have nothing
against learning technique, despite Brooks literally ramming it down my throat
(and robbing me of my sleep and health just to keep up w/ the work load), I
just realise that over-reliance on the technical over the creative, or vice
versa, is a sure recipe for photo myopia/dystopia.
Ironically, I saw a Brooks graduates' portfolio and it was technically adept,
blase' and lifeless, but I ended up going there (because of a surrealistic
photographer Duan Michal's workshop there that was nothing like/the antithesis
of their anal retentive technical curriculum) anyways because I was at a
creative/technical bored dead end (fashion testing in NYC) and needed to up my
photography to the next level (whatever that might be, hopefully meaningful, at
least to me, photography). It was a big mistake - but a mistake that I turned
to my advantage... Their anal reliance on unnecessary technique for my purposes
(shooting portraits in 4x5" under hot tungsten lights (turning people into
french fries for my camera), shooting the same shoot on three different films,
bracketing up the yin yang (a "Brooks bracket" is considered something like
bracketing every f-stop between f/1 and f/64 for every shoot regardless if the
subject/lighting dictates it ;-)) learning how to use a densitometer, how to
color correct your prints (a valuable skill for my purposes but I already
printed at a color rental darkroom anyways), putting a "whispy-do" (a gradated
hilight on a product), how to light black glass until you had Polaroids coming
out your ass, etc.) sent me off the deep end ;-) and into discovering for
myself and teaching myself the fine art aspects of both photography and Art in
general (through shooting what I wanted to shoot not what they wanted me to
shoot, art books, magazines, galleries and museums, talking to other
photographers and even taking other courses outside of their curriculum while I
was there).
I did learn three valuable things from Brooks: 1. Brooks was an incredible and
painful waste of time and money for me that would have been better spent
investing in the (non-photographic) stock market or into real estate; 2. teach
yourself what you love to do and disregard the unnecessary crap they force down
your throat because nobody can teach you how to be yourself
photographically/otherwise, and just as importantly if not more than the
preceding two points 3. I love Santa Barbara :-).
To sum up... No matter how many years it takes to find your uniqueness/voice,
_if you don't have something to say_ photographically, it doesn't matter how
long it takes to find your voice and it doesn't matter how technical and how
creative you are/get and in what proportions/percentages they intermix.
Reasoned Parker
wrote:
>Photography is highly technical. The technical aspects like perspective,
>lighting, shutter speed and aperture all have a direct and controlling impact
>on composition--- you can't separate the two.
Which is why, with the sole exception of photo-journalism,
photography can never be taken seriously by any TRUE artist.
It has it's merits and it's place, but HIGH ART, it ain't.
Jeff Novick
Please don't take what I say seriously. I certainly don't.
Jeff
PS-didn't you see my little smile at the end of my post?
"Denton Mickelson" <dem...@ids.net> wrote in message
news:tm6ab7o...@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Novick
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010728165335...@mb-ma.aol.com...
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 1:51 AM
>Message-id: <3b635f94...@news.prodigy.net>
This sounds like the century(s?) old argument of how the other arts are
"lesser" arts to painting which is boulderdash (to use a popular 19th century
term). It was alos used to describe the Fauves (an art movement w/i painting
w/i the early part of the 20th century and Impressionism and other art
movements before they gained "status." Your argument is not only ancient but
shows a willingess not to think. Its not the medium that matters but the
quality of the work. A great photograph (whatever its topical subject matter)
transcends its medium and is much better than a mediocre painting, even by a
great painter (not all great painters do great work, Picasso in particular said
in effect "I've faked many Picassos"). Don't get hung up on the medium - look
at the work - its either good art or it "ain't" - hierchy's of art are for
people who refuse to see with their own eyes...
Jeff Novick
how many times ol' Dilbertroid has attacked numerous posters?
And, what have you added to this discussion?
Jeff
PS-sorry, I couldn't help myself.
"Denton Mickelson" <dem...@ids.net> wrote in message
news:tm6b0em...@corp.supernews.com...
JR
c...@ieya.co.REMOVE_THIS.uk (Chris Hedley) wrote:
Well Chris I think that this may be an example of someone hearing a
small portion of something and assuming that the rest of it is the same
without investigating into it. Yes some Hip-Hop is very creative and
very enjoyable. Then some of it is garbage. Just like pretty much
anything in this world. Photography included. If you judged all Canon
users to be as obnoxious as say 2 people who post regularly here, you
would be guilty of generalizations. You have to delve a little deeper
to get the real story. If you don't want to, then that's fine, but
don't make statements unless you know what you are talking about. I
have to say that when I was looking at cars a few years ago, everyone I
talked to had an opinion on what I should buy. 99% of the opinions were
based on hearsay and old wives tales. When I narrowed my decision down
to a Range Rover 4.0SE and a BMW 540i, all said get the BMW, it will be
a much better car, yada yada yada. All said that the Range Rover would
be a headache, no one who said that had even driven one, let alone owned
one. When I looked into it, and saw the customer satisfaction of both
cars, and the repair problems of both cars, I was surprised the the
Range Rover was a more reliable car. I bought it. 3 years later, it is
the perfect vehicle for me and since then 2 of my friends have bought
them based on riding in and driving mine. The maintanence is not bad,
and the only thing I complain about is gas mileage....but I do so in
complete comfort. hehehe.
JR
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 2:38 AM
>Message-id: <mOJ87.3389$Sb6.1...@news.pacbell.net>
>
>You mean you disagree with the comment about Dilbertroid?
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20010728165335...@mb-ma.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: What's more important?
>> >From: Retina jhno...@pacbell.net
>> >Date: Sat, Jul 28, 2001 8:54 PM
>> >Message-id: <3B63186A...@pacbell.net>
>> >
>> >I wouldn't go that far as to say the other 2 aren't worth a damn. It's
>> >
>> >a hell of a foundation to have before the leap into the creative! Aside
>> >
>> >from pure genius, I would venture to say it takes at least 10 years of
>> >hard work before any artistic uniqueness can show itself, if ever.
SNIP
No Jeff:
I was merely disagreeing w/ the comment I think you made about it taking 10
years of hard work before any artistic uniqueness can show itself - w/ passion
and hard work, many people can find their own artistic uniqueness in a much
shorter time, dependent on the person and how much effort they put into it.
Which comment about Dilertdroid did you think I was disagreeing with? Fill me
in, as I'm beginning to lose track here...
Jeff Novick
"Reasoned Parker" <reason...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b635f94...@news.prodigy.net...
I think there would be many amongst us who disagree. Why would
photo-journalism be the sole exception? And, what is a true artist? And,
what is HIGH ART? I would venture to say that you have joined the ranks of
the 'brainwashed'.
Jeff
Jeff Novick
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
finding one's direction. There is no time limit to it, but, unfortunately,
it usually takes more than 10 years. I was just giving the benefit of the
doubt to those of us who feel more competent. If you read the biographies
of most 'artists', the struggle is a very long one.
Jeff
Reasoned Parker
wrote:
> A great photograph (whatever its topical subject matter)
>transcends its medium and is much better than a mediocre painting, even by a
>great painter (not all great painters do great work, Picasso in particular said
>in effect "I've faked many Picassos").
IF such a great photograph existed, that would be true, but that's a
big "IF". Most so-called "art shots", aren't.
And except in the field of photojournalism, can you honestly say that
you can separate the technique from the image?
Fact is, while what you say may be true in some very isolated cases,
even mediocrre paintings can have an impact that is not there is most
of the photographs pretending to be 'Art".
>Don't get hung up on the medium - look
>at the work - its either good art or it "ain't" - hierchy's of art are for
>people who refuse to see with their own eyes...
Exactly,
And it's in the "looking" that photography (with the exception of
photojournalism or other "documentary" forms that photography fails.
"Art" photographs, if anything, are copies of OTHER "Art" photographs.
There's a very easy way to test this... the MOS...
Most folks can probably name at least one great painting, and recall
it in their minds eye.
Can the same be said of photography? Look at the pictures that people
remember, and they are by and large NOT the art shots... they are the
documentary and news photos.
Photography is an exceptionally powerful media, but on it's own (not
used as elements in other works), it may be entertainment, but it
ain't "Art".
Reasoned Parker
Hey, I wish it weren't true either. But there is it. The tender-minded
might argue, but that doesn't change the fact.
Why would "photo-journalism" be the sole exception? I can't believe
you have to ask that. It's the one area (in human terms) where
photography shines, where it transcends it's technical limitations and
gets right to the root of "story telling".
Tony Spadaro
producing not just real art, but mature art.
My signature photo was take in 1966, when I had owned an SLR a couple
weeks, and a tripod for 6 hours. I had studied art to some extent - not
really a great extent. I was dveloping my own film, but was still at the
stage where getting actual negatives seemed like a miracle to me.
I've had students who produced what I would call mature work before
knowing how to fully control the camera. Some had previous art training,
some did not.
I don't think time is the key. I don't think time does anything but help
refine technique, and perhaps better define the goal you seek.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Retina" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3B63186A...@pacbell.net...
Annika1980
> There seems to be a movement that is the photographic
>equivalent of hip-hop music, where unskilled young people with plastic
>cameras
>run around with the cry "art is everything" on their lips, snapping away at
>whatever suits them. They rarely produce anything that interests anyone
>other than their equally clueless peers, because like the infinite number of
>monkeys on the infinite number of typewriters, what they produce is
>accidental
>and of no artistic merit. I've juried out thousands of such prints from
>exhibition, and after a while, the usual subject matter (the photographers
>own
>boobs or pubic hair or buttocks or those of their friends, tattoos, ugly
>gothics who look like cell phone towers, etc.) gets pretty repetitious.
>At
>the same time, a talented photographer (even a beginner just starting to
>master
>technical skills) stands out.
Do I stand out?
Would you like to see my pubes?
Joseph S. Wisniewski
>
> I think hip-hop is a perfect example of the continuing devolution of our
> culture, and is a legitimate analogy to the "dumbing down" of photography.
I think, based on my studies of folk music going back many hundreds of
years to medieval europe, and jumping all over the history of human
civilization, that people have been "dumbing down" culture as long as
there has been culture to dumb down. Ah, those great Renaissance
drinking and wenching songs. Just like sex and drugs in lyrics today.
What a rapster calls a "cop killer" now might just have well been Robin
Hood, 400 years ago.
If it's happening in their environment, someone is going to write some
folk songs about it.
Ciao!
Joe
Tony Spadaro
need a caption count? Do Cartier-Bressons pictures tell a story - or do you
look at the picture and make up your own?
People make up a lot of stories about music - To use an example I
remember from a particularly bad book on a particularly inane subject "Music
Appreciation" "The 3rd Brandenburg Concerto is opens with a passage
reminisent of ladies gossiping behind thier fans at the court of Louis XIV"
Complete assinine rot.
Some composers wrote stories into thier music - and much of it is better
than Peter and the Wolf. But music is not stories - it's music!
Photography is not stories either.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Reasoned Parker" <reason...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b637c2f...@news.prodigy.net...
Tony Spadaro
If you think photography is not art - then you haven't looked at
photography. If you think any art is Higher than another - perhaps you are
too high yourself.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Reasoned Parker" <reason...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b635f94...@news.prodigy.net...
Skip
> You're 'CULTURE' is white, and, uptight. Hip Hop is not about white and
> uptight! The fact that you offend some people is neither amusing nor
> satisfying. Try a little self-inspection and realize that your
> 'insights' are not very important. :)
Now you're making racist generalizations.
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Joshua Hakin
We are only in a position to comment on photography when we really consider
it. Before I was into photography I felt the same as Parker, but only
because I didn't understand the work and creativity that goes into each
image. After all with photography you just point and shoot right? Is that
what you think Parker?
With painting all you have to do is wipe a few colours on a canvas in any
old fashion and you got art! Right? Or is there a thought process behind
what colour, shapes, textures, and movement you apply and imply to create a
reaction in either you or the viewer?
Joshua Hakin
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oAL87.36314$TM5.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Jeff Novick
shines! Not only is it subjective, it makes no sense whatsoever. And, I'm
trying to be kind to you! Do you get out to any modern photography
galleries? Perhaps your hamlet doesn't have any. Here, in the small
village of San Francisco, we have a few photographic galleries that show
work of some truly talented photographers who work in ways that are not
conventional. If their work can't be called 'art', I wouldn't have the
faintest idea of what could be called art. Is 'story telling' equated with
art? C'mon, man, give us something worthy of discussion.
>
>
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 4:30 AM
>Message-id: <QrL87.36310$TM5.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
>
>On the artistic uniqueness - why would you say that? Lartigue at 6 was
>producing not just real art, but mature art.
> My signature photo was take in 1966, when I had owned an SLR a couple
>weeks, and a tripod for 6 hours. I had studied art to some extent - not
>really a great extent. I was dveloping my own film, but was still at the
>stage where getting actual negatives seemed like a miracle to me.
> I've had students who produced what I would call mature work before
>knowing how to fully control the camera. Some had previous art training,
>some did not.
> I don't think time is the key. I don't think time does anything but help
>refine technique, and perhaps better define the goal you seek.
Good example and... Hear hear! or... Here, here! (or however its spelled) :-)
Jeff Novick
There are always exceptions to everything, but, beginner's luck is one thing
and a consistent artistic output is another. Most artists in other mediums
will tell you the same thing, it takes time to learn about the materials and
tools and what can and can't be done. Tell me you haven't stopped learning.
Tell me you don't discover new and interesting ways of expressing the
negative in your prints. If your good, you grow, and, hopefully, your
vision expands and changes and your expression deepens. Time is important,
especially if you work consistently on your craft. Time not only refines
technique, it can allow the creative to express itself in new ways. Time is
inseparable from this process, Tony.
Jeff
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QrL87.36310$TM5.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Jeff Novick
Where's Tony Polson?!
Luv ya, baby.
"Skip" <shadow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B60E950...@home.com...
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <OPK87.3400$Sb6.1...@news.pacbell.net>
Sorry, my humor radar must be aimed at Dnk'n Donuts or the nearest airport as
this went right over my head
;-)
But, I fully agree with you about
>finding one's direction. There is no time limit to it, but, unfortunately,
>it usually takes more than 10 years. I was just giving the benefit of the
>doubt to those of us who feel more competent. If you read the biographies
>of most 'artists', the struggle is a very long one.
>
>Jeff
What strikes me more poignantly is how most artists don't find their art so
much as it finds them, whatever the time limit. Van Gogh discovered the (pardon
the pun ( full "flower") of his "voice" ("sight" doesn't sound as good so I'll
borrow from the sound category/term) during the last two years or so of his
life (although he did a few masterpieces like "The Potato Eaters" before then).
Picasso was knocking from (I won't say stealing, though I could I geuss)
various art movements until he found what was essentially his (and Braques)
voice in the various forms of Cubism he engendered, but the elements were there
before hand, and of course, in retrospect it seems like a natural progression.
On Beatles' albums it is interesting to see how their early brand of "yeah,
yeah rock" (their own style of rock/ballads and their covers of other early
rock greats) led to more and more experimentation w/ Indian music on Help!
(haven't heard this "album" in a while so its only use of sitar might have been
on an orchestration/instrumental track) through Rubber Soul ("Norweigian Wood")
and backwards guitar/sound effects ("I'm Only Sleeping", also Rubber Soul) lead
to the even further out "Tommorrow Never Knows" and "The Void" and eventually
to the masterpieces of "Strawberry Fields Forever" (which was supposed to
originally be on the Sgt. Peppers Album to the Seargent Pepper's Lonely Heart's
Club Band itself (which fused elements of classical, Indian Sitar "raga rock",
Hendricksesque (gee, that's not a term that flies trippingly from the tongue...
;-)) guitar, surreal backwards/etc. tape loops, etc.). "A Day in the Life" is
as much a collage of songs fused into one super poigniant super song as the
later fugue? (pardon me if the term is not applicable) of songs later heard on
one of the sides of their last album Abbey Road." Though I appreciate some Jazz
(Miles Davis, Brubeck, etc.) I really don't know about it enough to comment on
it. Other milestones would be the Gershwin brothers fusing of Jazz, opera, and
the musical and perhaps Tommy and the other rock operas such as Jesus Christ
Superstar, Godspell, Hair, etc. that came later. I can't comment on rap as my
appreciation for it begins and ends at Run D.M.C's and Aerosmiths version of
"Walk this Way" and a few others. I know JR might crucify me for this, but I
never really got into rap as I find it a harder version of disco which itself
became to formulized. Most of the boy bands of today make my eyes want to roll
up in my head w/ boredom. I am not a musical expert by any means but I
appreciate when previous elements come together to form something new and/or
something unique, despite its roots... There's nothingmore exciting than
watching (or listening to) a great idea(s) taking shape...
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <AMK87.3399$Sb6.1...@news.pacbell.net>
High art is what happens when critics inhale their own criticism w/o
thinking... :-)
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 3:59 AM
>Message-id: <3b637c2f...@news.prodigy.net>
What narrow minded thinking! I am also partial to “story-telling’ myself but I
find much of photojournalism hollow, formulaic and too literal in nature and
lacking in personal or social commentary - no poetry, no soul - like the pages
of an empty diary, just record shots. There are plenty of examples of high art
in photography that tell stories and/or depict character w/o falling into
and/or transcending the narrow category of photojournalism from Robert
Misrach’s, Stephen Shore? (I forget if this is the photgrapher/artist’s name
who matches the pictures in my mind), and others landscapes to the surreality
of Duane Michals, Les Krims, Francesca Woodman, Paul Denar, even myself (hey,
why not?), etc. Art transcends categories, categories are labels and labels can
as much imprison as illuminate...
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 7:06 AM
>Message-id: <TJN87.1908$NV5.2...@news.pacbell.net>
>
>Hey, I thought this newsgroup was about equipment!
>Where's Tony Polson?!
>
>Luv ya, baby.
>
No this group is about making racist generalizations against white people, hip
hop, high art, and the Nikon/Canon religions... ;-)
>"Skip" <shadow...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3B60E950...@home.com...
>> Retina wrote:
>> > You're 'CULTURE' is white, and, uptight. Hip Hop is not about white
>and
>> > uptight! The fact that you offend some people is neither amusing nor
>> > satisfying. Try a little self-inspection and realize that your
>> > 'insights' are not very important. :)
>>
>> Now you're making racist generalizations.
>> Skip
>> --
>> Shadowcatcher Imagery
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Lewis
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 4:48 AM
>Message-id: <1IL87.36317$TM5.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
>
>And what is the artistic value of story telling? And do photographs that
>need a caption count? Do Cartier-Bressons pictures tell a story - or do
>you
>look at the picture and make up your own?
> People make up a lot of stories about music - To use an example I
>remember from a particularly bad book on a particularly inane subject "Music
>Appreciation" "The 3rd Brandenburg Concerto is opens with a passage
>reminisent of ladies gossiping behind thier fans at the court of Louis XIV"
>Complete assinine rot.
> Some composers wrote stories into thier music - and much of it is better
>than Peter and the Wolf. But music is not stories - it's music!
> Photography is not stories either.
To agree and yet at the same time disagree w/ you Tony ;-), stories can be a
part of any art form, but that doesn't make it high or low art or even art at
all. Photography can be stories that are either intended by the photographer or
not/later read into by an audience w/ an over active imagination, there are
many ballads and instrumental operas that are story based (Firebird, Peer Gynt,
etc.), painting also has a long history of story-telling, etc... Music and
Photography (and painting/etc.) are merely art mediums, and to asign merely one
quality ie. "story-telling" or one sub-section of the medium (such as
photojournalism) as high art and others as not, as Reasoned Parker did, is,
well, plain assinine. Don't get me wrong "Reasoned", you may (or may not)
indeed be as your non de plume states a "reasoned" man but your thinking on
this topic is sheer prejuidicial myopic and assinine. You have a preference for
story-telling photographs, well guess what? So do I. In fact Ilove
story-telling so much that many of my surrealistic still lifes have a
narrative/situational/story-telling and/or personal or social commentary
element to them. However I have learned to expand my appreciation of what is
and isn’t art or high art beyond my tastes/prejuidices to even include some
works in categories I hate (landscapes being one of them, still lifes and even
snap shots being another of them). I could make you a picture of this by typing
it out here or shooting it w/ a camera, but if the picture doesn’t come out
photojournalistic/”story-telling” enough for you please don’t accuse me of not
making some high art.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 3:48 AM
>Message-id: <3b6375ed...@news.prodigy.net>
>
>On 29 Jul 2001 01:39:19 GMT, cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
>wrote:
>> A great photograph (whatever its topical subject matter)
>>transcends its medium and is much better than a mediocre painting, even
>by a
>>great painter (not all great painters do great work, Picasso in particular
>said
>>in effect "I've faked many Picassos").
>
>
>IF such a great photograph existed, that would be true, but that's a
>big "IF".
No, in fact and opinion, look into any compendium of photography from Nadar’s
portraits to Les Krims and Duane Michals surrealism and I’d pit any of their
works against mediocre paintings and against many paintings that are not so
mediocre.
>Most so-called "art shots", aren't.
Define what is and isn’t art beyond your tastes/prejuidices towards most
non-photojournalistic/story-telling photography please.
>And except in the field of photojournalism, can you honestly say that
>you can separate the technique from the image?
>
What does separating or for that matter including technique w/ the image have
anything to do with whether it is or isn’t art or high art? Can you separate
Seurat or Van Gogh’s brush strokes from their images. Technique is part of art
but technique alone neither makes something art or not art or high art or low
art.
>Fact is, while what you say may be true in some very isolated cases,
Not...
>even mediocrre paintings can have an impact that is not there is most
>of the photographs pretending to be 'Art".
>
Photographs don’t pretend, only people do. Ithink you’re misleading yourself
here. Everything can have an “effect” whether it is art or not, whether tha
effect is intended or not. Who are you tosay/on what basis do you say that
“most of the photographs pretending to be “Art”? Perhaps at least some of those
photographs “pretending to be Art” _ are_ “Art” - but how would you be able to
tell the “Art” from the “non-Art” if you can’t see beyond your own visual
prejuidices?
>>Don't get hung up on the medium - look
>>at the work - its either good art or it "ain't" - hierchy's of art are
>for
>>people who refuse to see with their own eyes...
>
>Exactly,
>And it's in the "looking" that photography (with the exception of
>photojournalism or other "documentary" forms that photography fails.
>"Art" photographs, if anything, are copies of OTHER "Art" photographs.
>
“So you say”... Prove it.
>
>There's a very easy way to test this... the MOS...
>
>Most folks can probably name at least one great painting, and recall
>it in their minds eye.
>
>Can the same be said of photography?
Photography as an art form/medium or notis not based on popularity. This not
“Family Feud” (“survey said 56% consider photography an art and the next 12%
consider it a good way to make a picture to cover a cereal box”...). Popularity
and easy memorability are only indications of popularity and memorability not
“Art.” More people can name and remember “Dogs Playing Poker” than can
remember and name the artist who’s painting is the basis (I believe) for the
dollar bill (Gilbert Stuart), does that make “Dogs Playing Poker” Art? Perhaps
bad and/or junk Art (my own prejuidice here), but certainly not good Art (and
this is from someone who loves Pop Art, give me Elvis on Black Velvet before
any of the “Dog” pictures!).
Look at the pictures that people
>remember, and they are by and large NOT the art shots... they are the
>documentary and news photos.
>
No, they are by and large icons like the Statue of Liberty, the smiley face,
etc. “Moon over Hernandez,” portraits by Nadar, Julia Margaret Cameron, and
even surrealistic non PJalistic photos by PJ’s such as the pre-staged cat being
splashed by water by Life Photographer Phillipe Halsman and any other
photograph or non-photographic image/icon that has been media-exposed to death.
But so what. Again, using memorability/popularity or medium or sub-topic w/i a
medium such as PJ as indicators of an artwork’s status or credibility as a work
of art is a non-argument and sheer folly based on personal taste, prejuidice,
and ignorance.
>Photography is an exceptionally powerful media, but on it's own (not
>used as elements in other works), it may be entertainment, but it
>ain't "Art".
Photography ain’t “Art”. Painting ain’t “Art.” Music ain’t “Art”. Television
ain’t “Art”. Movies ain’t “Art”. Sculpture ain’t “Art”. They all “ain’t ‘Art’”
ad infinitum ad nauseum add cream and sugar w/ a cherry on top. None of these
are “Art” they are only “art mediums” or “mediums of Art.” Your argument is as
stupid as rock and roll ain’t art, etc. Any medium can be used for
entertainment purposes, it doesn’t make it any less of an art or more of an
art, art is in the making, the work, regardless of medium. I feel like I’m
having an argument w/ a two year old here... Wake up and transcend your own
prejuidices!
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 4:40 AM
>Message-id: <oAL87.36314$TM5.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
>
>What is High Art - drawings made while drunk?
> If you think photography is not art - then you haven't looked at
>photography. If you think any art is Higher than another - perhaps you are
>too high yourself.
"Eight miles high, and when you come down"... :-)
Pat Chaney
>Hip-Hop and Rap are to real music what "Break Dancing" was to Ballet,
>Tapdance, and Ballroom dancing.
Well I guess we should all be grateful for hip-hop and rap then.
Pat
--
Photos at:
http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
Pat Chaney
>Do I stand out?
>Would you like to see my pubes?
Could you not put a rabbit in front of them?
Tony Spadaro
tell a story.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010729032551...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
Denton Mickelson
"Number 2".
--
Denny Mickelson
East Greenwich, Rhode Island
"Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:5NJ87.3388$Sb6.1...@news.pacbell.net...
> Who, me?
>
> Please don't take what I say seriously. I certainly don't.
>
> Jeff
>
> PS-didn't you see my little smile at the end of my post?
>
> "Denton Mickelson" <dem...@ids.net> wrote in message
> news:tm6ab7o...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Hip-Hop and Rap are to real music what "Break Dancing" was to Ballet,
> > Tapdance, and Ballroom dancing.
> > BTW no racial putdown intended here since I consider Jazz, R&B, Rock n
> Roll,
> > and Motown to be "real music". It has nothing whatever to do with
"Black"
> or
> > "White". It has everything to do with talent. You need to loosen up a
> little
> > yourself (or is it "chill out").
> > --
> > Denny Mickelson
> > East Greenwich, Rhode Island
> > "Retina" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B6315DC...@pacbell.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dilbertdroid wrote:
> > >
> > > > <<What is it with you and Hip-Hop? Lighten up dude.....All your
posts
> > > > seem to put down something or another....Its ashame because when
your
> > > > are not giving your very one-sided opinions on the social world,
your
> > > > photography insight is nice.....
> > > > JR>>>
> > > >
> > > > I think hip-hop is a perfect example of the continuing devolution of
> our
> > > > culture, and is a legitimate analogy to the "dumbing down" of
> > photography.
> > > > The fact that my my opinions seem to offend people like you is a
> > continuing
> > > > source of both amusement and satisfaction.
Tony Spadaro
week I'll be putting a series on the web that kept bouncing this line around
in my head.
"Some laughing, some just shapeless forms"
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010729041358...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
Tony Spadaro
developed than his father, who wizely gave up his own career to promote the
child. The earliers of his works are not beginner's luck but they are
certainly not the almost unbelievable masterpieces written near the close of
his life. His voice was however, remarkably consistant through his entire
life.
We may be arguing terms here. I'll try to make my position clearer - HO
HO. Actually we are entering the ground I've been trying to map for my
entire life. However, I will solder on (not a misprint).
I think the art is either in there or it isn't. Some people are
musicians despite being unable to actually play an instrument, others make a
good living playing music but have not a whiff of music within - Madonna
comes to mind, but there are many others as well known. A rather severe case
of this was a classical guitarist I knew who bragged about how fast he could
do chromatic scales. His playing was very precise. He was unaware of
phrasing. There was a coterie of people who wanted to play like him but
couldn't get their tremelo, or picado up to speed. Many of them actually
played music, if not quite so fast or precise, with a real feeling for the
phrases and colouration of the pieces.
I feel the same is true of photography. Many many people caught up in
technique, or the "rules" of composition, and not letting their eye find a
real picture. For some, there simply is no eye, and they will never have
one, for others it may take years or decades to discover, or they may never
find it, but it's there, and can be seen in the occasional shot, trying to
fight it's way through the roadbocks the mind has built to keep it
suppressed.
With my students I could tell very quickly which ones were going to find
their eye and which ones were going to have trouble, and which ones simply
did not have an eye. I did my best to hide this from them as I didn't want
it to be a self fulfilling prophesy.
Yes one does develop over time. Those who don't stagnate and the eye
will go back into hiding. I agree that there can be much more to mature
work, and technical ability certainly never hurt an artist. But the eye is
probably born with the photographer.
Some of my oldest surviving pictures are on the web. At the site
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
not only is the splash page that signature piece I mentioned previously, but
the gallery called Objects Domestic are all from that same period - late
fall and winter 1966-67. Most of my film was lost long ago in a fire. A few
negatives survived because they were lost behind a cabinet in a friends
darkroom for several years.
In the Gallery of my latest site, there is in fact a picture taken at
least a year earlier. It was done with my Grandmother's Kodak folding
camera - 119 or 116 film, 6x9 negative. All that I still have from it are
some contact prints made by a friend. It's a shot of a girl walking against
a stormy sky. It was taken from a moving car.
Take the link to my homepage, and from there go to Recent Projects. It's the
middle picture in the "Search For Edith Swan Neck" on the Poster page.
More than one person has commented that I'm still into shooting things
from moving cars - the next page is called "Moving Pictures" and they were
all shot in the last year.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:IFN87.1906$NV5.2...@news.pacbell.net...
Dilbertdroid
Would you like to see my pubes?
You do stand out, but mainly as the poster child for egocentric fools. I'll
leave your pubes to your little doggie friends. Frankly, given a choice, I'd
rather see the grill of a Mack truck bearing down on me at 70 mph.
Dilbertdroid
Ah, a hip-hop racist. Just how "important" does that make your little
insights?
Dilbertdroid
Yes, we should. It gives the degenerate layers of society something to do
other than drugs. It also gives them an outlet to express their desire to
rape, murder, beat women, sodomize, kill their parents, and all the other
wonderful things popularized by subhuman creeps like Eminem.
Dilbertdroid
developed than his father, who wizely gave up his own career to promote the
C'mon Tony, you're using a very, very rare genius to advance your point.
Remember, one man's "art" is another man's trash. Art is subjective-- so
subjective, in fact, that you will find plenty of people who find Mozart's
music revolting. (JR is probably one of them.) While the majority confirm
the genius of Mozart, such acclaim is entirely subjective. I still reject
the whole premise that technique and vision are "ingredient's" that one can mix
and match to the occaision. The idea is simplistic the entire question sounds
like the kind of drivel that graduates of mind control programs like Dale
Carnegie like to spout after their sessions.
Dilbertdroid
never be taken seriously by any TRUE artist.
It has it's merits and it's place, but HIGH ART, it ain't.>>
I didn't think anyone could top the absurdity of the original question, but
here it is.
Dilbertdroid
I don't understand what you mean. What did I say that shows you this?>>>
I rest my case.
Chris Hedley
> Well Chris I think that this may be an example of someone hearing a
> small portion of something and assuming that the rest of it is the same
> without investigating into it. Yes some Hip-Hop is very creative and
> very enjoyable. Then some of it is garbage. Just like pretty much
> anything in this world. Photography included. If you judged all Canon
> users to be as obnoxious as say 2 people who post regularly here, you
> would be guilty of generalizations. You have to delve a little deeper
> to get the real story. If you don't want to, then that's fine, but
> don't make statements unless you know what you are talking about. I
Er, that was the point I was trying to make.
Chris.
Tony Spadaro
rather than composers - a Mozart is very rare indeed.
Art is subjective. No denying that. However that's not the point. The
point is there is an ability built into some, and not to others. Liking the
result or dis-liking it, even being made sick by it are incidental. It's
art. It's the ability to create.
Did I say that technique and vision can be mixed and matched to
"occasion"? I doubt it. What I said was technique is secondary to vision -
and a distant second at that. If I wasn't clear, I apologise.
I haven't heard any graduates of Dale Carnegie spout - but I doubt it
can be much worse than listening to Moonies, Evangelicals or Primal
Screamers. Most of those people have definately suppressed every spark of
creativity to ever have crossed their minds.
I will agree that making statements about percentages of this and that
that make up a good photograph is simplistic, and will even go it one
farther: Anyone who thinks good pictures can be made by following a formula
is on a treadmill to mediocrity.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Dilbertdroid" <dilber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010729074221...@mb-mr.aol.com...
Reasoned Parker
<jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>If ever I've seen a completely subjective response to a question, yours
>shines! Not only is it subjective, it makes no sense whatsoever. And, I'm
>trying to be kind to you! Do you get out to any modern photography
>galleries? Perhaps your hamlet doesn't have any.
You believe that the proof of "Art" is to have a gallery devoted to
it.
That's inane.
> Here, in the small
>village of San Francisco, we have a few photographic galleries that show
>work of some truly talented photographers who work in ways that are not
>conventional.
Why does producing something that is not conventional automatically
make it 'Art"?
You're truly off the mark here. You're confusing manipulation by a
(maybe) talented craftsman with the product of folks who have
something truly interesting to say.
As far as your contention that it's "Art" because it's in San
Francisco, I'm sure you have more "galleries" that we do in D.C., but
it's also true that you have more pretenders scamning the tourist
trade.
Reasoned Parker
<tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
> Photography is not stories either.
With the exception of photo-journalism, you and I agree, and that's
why non-documentary photography can never be an art form.
And that's why, the average person on the street cannot name even ONE
great Art photograph, and yet, even the least interested in the
subject can recall several paintings, the artist, and even recall the
image in their minds eye.
Reasoned Parker
wrote:
>What does separating or for that matter including technique w/ the image have
>anything to do with whether it is or isn’t art or high art? Can you separate
>Seurat or Van Gogh’s brush strokes from their images. Technique is part of art
>but technique alone neither makes something art or not art or high art or low
>art.
Certainly, but that's where photography fails. Both Seurat and Van
Gogh used technique to a high purpose, while (with the exception of
photo-journalism) "art" photographers rarely if ever get beyond
technique.
Look, as both an award wining artist and award winning
photo-journalist, I would love to be able to combine photography and
art. But it just isn't there.
When it comes to REAL "Art" (not the "artistic" examples you provided)
photography just doesn't cut it.
Steve H
all racial boundaries, effectively demonstrating that stupidity and the
complete lack of a sense of ethics and empathy, the inability to understand
cause and consequence, is evenly distributed throughout the human species.
It is a manifestation of the culture of the reptile, an ethic centred in the
limbic and sub-cortical systems of the brain rather than the higher cortical
functions that are formed by education and shape the lives of civilized
people of all races. It is the expression of the culture of people who live
by reflex rather than reason.
"Retina" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
ERNReed
>I do a lot of shooting of late with song lyrics going through my head
Maybe you could consider working your way through "American Pie" or "Bohemian
Rhapsody" -- should keep you out of mischief for a long while!
:-)
(Hmm. Maybe *I* could do a series through "American Pie" ... )
----------------------------------------------------------------
"They call me Mrs Reed"
http://members.aol.com/ernreed
If you aren't spamming, avoid the junktrap
Jeff Novick
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >Subject: Re: What's more important?
> >From: "Jeff Novick" jhno...@pacbell.net
> >Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 7:06 AM
> >Message-id: <TJN87.1908$NV5.2...@news.pacbell.net>
> >
> >Hey, I thought this newsgroup was about equipment!
> >Where's Tony Polson?!
> >
> >Luv ya, baby.
> >
>
> No this group is about making racist generalizations against white people,
hip
> hop, high art, and the Nikon/Canon religions... ;-)
>
When in Rome, do as the Romans do!
Jeff Novick
No doubt there are those that are 'opened up' to creative influences from
early on. It really gives a focus to one's life as in the case of Mozart
and his immense output of astonishing quality. On the other hand, I
mentioned in an earlier post of clinical tests that show that 'creativity'
can be taught, learned. It's too bad I can't point to a source for this as
I first heard about this a few years ago listening to a radio program. But,
this should not come as any surprise as many artists have discovered new
wells of inspiration inside them over time. I use the word 'struggle' as
that is what it has been for me to try and create something of my own vision
with either photography or painting.
Jeff
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KCQ87.36933$TM5.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Jeff Novick
"Dilbertdroid" <dilber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010729071714...@mb-mr.aol.com...
Jeff Novick
South-Central!
"Steve H" <sjhouse....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b642f11$0$296$45be...@newscene.com...
Jeff Novick
"Reasoned Parker" <reason...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b640d9...@news.prodigy.net...
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 22:47:28 -0700, "Jeff Novick"
> <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >If ever I've seen a completely subjective response to a question, yours
> >shines! Not only is it subjective, it makes no sense whatsoever. And,
I'm
> >trying to be kind to you! Do you get out to any modern photography
> >galleries? Perhaps your hamlet doesn't have any.
>
> You believe that the proof of "Art" is to have a gallery devoted to
> it.
> That's inane.
I didn't say that. Where else do you view 'Art'?
>
>
>
>
> > Here, in the small
> >village of San Francisco, we have a few photographic galleries that show
> >work of some truly talented photographers who work in ways that are not
> >conventional.
>
> Why does producing something that is not conventional automatically
> make it 'Art"?
I didn't say that either. You seem to be twisting my words to suit your
line of thinking.
> You're truly off the mark here. You're confusing manipulation by a
> (maybe) talented craftsman with the product of folks who have
> something truly interesting to say.
This is where you are sadly mistaken. All artists manipulate their vision.
That is what 'art' is all about! It's the different ways people view
things. Your taste may vary with mine, but, we are talking about the same
things, are we not? In fact, what work of art do you consider not
manipulated?
>
> As far as your contention that it's "Art" because it's in San
> Francisco, I'm sure you have more "galleries" that we do in D.C., but
> it's also true that you have more pretenders scamning the tourist
> trade.
>
>
Ah, we finally agree! But, the galleries I refer to are not in the tourist
districts and they are not storefronts. Only the highly initiated can find
them, or, the truly talented. But, then again, you are amongst the truly
talented, being an award winner!
Jeff
>
Tony Spadaro
and does not include photography? I "knew" before I was 7 that the Mona Lisa
was great art - I had been told so by my teachers and by books.
I suggest instead you go down to your local poster gallery and see what
they are selling. You would be surprized how many people can not only name
an Ansel Adams photo, but have one on their living room wall. I've see
people buy posters of Doisneau photos, Eliot Porter, There is a
Cartier-Bresson (of a french road between tall poplar trees) hanging in the
service departmant of the car dealership where we bought our car.
Quite frankly photojournalism rarely rises above snaps taken at the right
moment in the right place. Celebrity photos (including politicians at
newsconverences and other places where a photo is deemed necessary even
though it really serves no purpose) are of even less quality, usually done
with IN YER FACE flash and little regard for anythig but getting the shot
back for the early edition.
This is in no way art - it's business. The occasional news shot that
rises above mere commerce does get an inordinate amount of praise, but
mostly because anything looks good compared to the usual dreck.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Reasoned Parker" <reason...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b6410a9...@news.prodigy.net...
Tony Spadaro
is an art. Having magazines devoted to art photography is part of it too, as
is having people who collect photographs either personally or for
organizations.
Photography has been established as an art for at least 100 years.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Reasoned Parker" <reason...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b640d9...@news.prodigy.net...
Tony Spadaro
Perhaps. I just have not experienced anyone learnig creativity. I've watched
people discover teh tool that allowed them to finaaly express what was
already inside them (my own introduction to the adjustable camera put an end
to years of frustration with drawing and several months of living with the
distinct aroma of terpentine while I attempted to oil paint).
Much of what I've see as attempts to teach creativity have been the very
opposite. Bilge like the "rule of thirds" and goemetrical charts designed to
show the best place to put the elements in a painting. These creativity
systems are always to do with visual arts. In music, composition is taught
but usually only as loose examples of past works along with critique of the
students works. This is not teaching creativity to my mind
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:VKY87.2458$y%4.4...@news.pacbell.net...
Tony Spadaro
words to Bohemian Rhapsody. Isn't that a piano piece by Listz or Brahms? Or
am I thinking of Hungarian Rhapsodies etc?
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"ERNReed" <ern...@aol.comjunktrap> wrote in message
news:20010729124102...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
Chris Hedley
> Go to it - I don't know the words to either. In fact I'm not sure there are
> words to Bohemian Rhapsody. Isn't that a piano piece by Listz or Brahms? Or
> am I thinking of Hungarian Rhapsodies etc?
Er, do you really not know the (in)famous Queen song? You know, the one
that was released in about '75 and was in the charts for what seemed like
the next 15 years, coincidentally about the same length of time the bloody
thing went on for! Some of the instrumental breaks were played using a
fireplace.
Chris.
Tony Spadaro
down the usual White Power shit. Do you wear you camera under or over your
klan robe?
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Steve H" <sjhouse....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b642f11$0$296$45be...@newscene.com...
Tony Spadaro
not that song. I assumed it was a light classical piece I wasn't familiar
with - I do know Romanian Rhapsody, Hungarian Rhapsody, The Hungarian
Dances, and Swedish Rhapsody. I figured it was similar.
I was involved in rock in the late 60s but had returned to classical and
traditional before the disco era. Heavy metal drove me out - Iron Butterfly,
Lead Zepplin - that sort of rot. By 75 I guess my own children (who were big
into playing my records from the 60s) were apparently no longer involved in
radio grot either. I remember a lot of that interminable album by Cat
Stevens and a similar one by a group I can't remember the name of - Stevie
Nicks was the lead singer. Neither was obnoxious but both were very
simplistic and after about a hundred hearings, one wanted to scrub the discs
with brillo pads.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Chris Hedley" <c...@ieya.co.REMOVE_THIS.uk> wrote in message
news:gdr1k9...@teabag.cbhnet...
Steve H
Hunter's Point. I see little to recommend the neighborhoods or the
lifestyles, yet Hip-Hop glorifies them and attempts to teach that that's the
way one should be, that's the way one should live, that's the culture we
should aspire to. Why?
"Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rQY87.2461$y%4.4...@news.pacbell.net...
Bob Hickey
offices on that block. Well, OK, maybe now it's starting to slip.
Bob Hickey
From: jhno...@pacbell.net (Jeff Novick)
Pat Chaney
It's good that all this is limited to a few rap artists, and never
appears in the movies or on TV eh?
Then we really would be in trouble ...
Pat
--
Photos at:
http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
Pat Chaney
>I've been in South-Central, many times, likewise Pico-Alvarado, likewise
>Hunter's Point. I see little to recommend the neighborhoods or the
>lifestyles, yet Hip-Hop glorifies them and attempts to teach that that's the
>way one should be, that's the way one should live, that's the culture we
>should aspire to. Why?
Should people in less affluent areas be ashamed of their neighbourhood
and local culture then, because they don't comply with certain middle
class ideals?
Pat Chaney
>Maybe you could consider working your way through "American Pie" or "Bohemian
>Rhapsody" -- should keep you out of mischief for a long while!
>:-)
>
>(Hmm. Maybe *I* could do a series through "American Pie" ... )
Make sure it's the full version, not the one released as a single.
Jeff Novick
"Bob Hickey" <bobh...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18478-3B...@storefull-222.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <aNY87.2459$y%4.4...@news.pacbell.net>
>
>This conversation is almost as absurd as your nom de plume!
This is a conversation? I thought it was a dinner party for the disenfranchised
Art bigots and racists...
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 12:44 PM
>Message-id: <20010729074435...@mb-mr.aol.com>
>
><<Which is why, with the sole exception of photo-journalism, photography
>can
>never be taken seriously by any TRUE artist.
>It has it's merits and it's place, but HIGH ART, it ain't.>>
>
>I didn't think anyone could top the absurdity of the original question,
>but
>here it is.
I sometimes do my photography from a ladder - if that ain't high art, I don't
know what is... ;-)
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 2:41 PM
>Message-id: <3b64125a...@news.prodigy.net>
>
>On 29 Jul 2001 08:11:54 GMT, cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
>wrote:
>>What does separating or for that matter including technique w/ the image
>have
>>anything to do with whether it is or isn’t art or high art? Can you separate
>>Seurat or Van Gogh’s brush strokes from their images. Technique is part
>of art
>>but technique alone neither makes something art or not art or high art
>or low
>>art.
>
>
>Certainly, but that's where photography fails. Both Seurat and Van
>Gogh used technique to a high purpose, while (with the exception of
>photo-journalism) "art" photographers rarely if ever get beyond
>technique.
>
Then you haven’t been seeing enough art photography, what you’re seeing is
technography, not art photography and/or your simply judging most art
photography as Techniquey which is the exact oppositte of what art photography
really is, to express the ideas/emotions/soul of the artist and not to express
a technique.
>Look, as both an award wining artist and award winning
>photo-journalist, I would love to be able to combine photography and
>art. But it just isn't there.
>
>When it comes to REAL "Art" (not the "artistic" examples you provided)
>photography just doesn't cut it.
Well then, since you declared it such it “must” be so... Get “REAL”!
Photography is a medium, real art can and is created everyday outside your
narrow confines of what you declare “Art.” Your definitions of what does and
does not constitute “REAL Art” or “high Art” are what doesn’t cut it for me. I
do both photojournalism, surrealism and a combination/fusion of the two. What
you think or what you say is or isn’t art or high art are irrelevant - it
either is or it isn’t art. I guess the many galleries and museums that showed
my photography should have just showed my PJ work as we wouldn’t want to defy
your narrow little definition of what’s art or high art , now would we?...
Pat Chaney
>I sometimes do my photography from a ladder - if that ain't high art, I don't
>know what is... ;-)
Avoid arguments with aerial photographers on this point :)
Lewis Lang
I might be alone... :-)
>Subject: Re: What's more important?
>From: "Tony Spadaro" tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com
>Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 10:26 AM
>Message-id: <nFQ87.36934$TM5.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
>
>I agree with you on this, I just don't think good art (of any kind) MUST
>tell a story.
>
>--
>http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
>The Camera-ist's Manifesto
>a Radical approach to photography.
>Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
>Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
>http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
>
>
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20010729032551...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: What's more important?
>> >From: "Tony Spadaro" tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com
>> >Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 4:48 AM
>> >Message-id: <1IL87.36317$TM5.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
>> >
>> >And what is the artistic value of story telling? And do photographs that
>> >need a caption count? Do Cartier-Bressons pictures tell a story - or
>do
>> >you
>> >look at the picture and make up your own?
>> > People make up a lot of stories about music - To use an example I
>> >remember from a particularly bad book on a particularly inane subject
>"Music
>> >Appreciation" "The 3rd Brandenburg Concerto is opens with a passage
>> >reminisent of ladies gossiping behind thier fans at the court of Louis
>XIV"
>> >Complete assinine rot.
>> > Some composers wrote stories into thier music - and much of it is
>better
>> >than Peter and the Wolf. But music is not stories - it's music!
>> > Photography is not stories either.
>>
>> To agree and yet at the same time disagree w/ you Tony ;-), stories can
>be
>a
>> part of any art form, but that doesn't make it high or low art or even
>art
>at
>> all. Photography can be stories that are either intended by the
>photographer or
>> not/later read into by an audience w/ an over active imagination, there
>are
>> many ballads and instrumental operas that are story based (Firebird, Peer
>Gynt,
>> etc.), painting also has a long history of story-telling, etc... Music
>and
>> Photography (and painting/etc.) are merely art mediums, and to asign
>merely one
>> quality ie. "story-telling" or one sub-section of the medium (such as
>> photojournalism) as high art and others as not, as Reasoned Parker did,
>is,
>> well, plain assinine. Don't get me wrong "Reasoned", you may (or may not)
>> indeed be as your non de plume states a "reasoned" man but your thinking
>on
>> this topic is sheer prejuidicial myopic and assinine. You have a
>preference for
>> story-telling photographs, well guess what? So do I. In fact Ilove
>> story-telling so much that many of my surrealistic still lifes have a
>> narrative/situational/story-telling and/or personal or social commentary
>> element to them. However I have learned to expand my appreciation of what
>is
>> and isn't art or high art beyond my tastes/prejuidices to even include
>some
>> works in categories I hate (landscapes being one of them, still lifes
>and
>even
>> snap shots being another of them). I could make you a picture of this
>by
>typing
>> it out here or shooting it w/ a camera, but if the picture doesn't come
>out
>> photojournalistic/"story-telling" enough for you please don't accuse me
>of
>not
>> making some high art.
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <TuY87.2446$y%4.4...@news.pacbell.net>
>
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20010729030155...@ng-mp1.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: What's more important?
>> >From: "Jeff Novick" jhno...@pacbell.net
>> >Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 7:06 AM
>> >Message-id: <TJN87.1908$NV5.2...@news.pacbell.net>
>> >
>> >Hey, I thought this newsgroup was about equipment!
>> >Where's Tony Polson?!
>> >
>> >Luv ya, baby.
>> >
>>
>> No this group is about making racist generalizations against white people,
>hip
>> hop, high art, and the Nikon/Canon religions... ;-)
>>
>
>When in Rome, do as the Romans do!
Yes, but why go to vomitoriums when we have usenet
;-)