Is color landscape photography art ?
Quang-Tuan Luong
Kerry Thalmann wrote:
>>Although the artistic images are nice, I personally prefer more
>traditional color landscape photography.
It seems that most people, including many of the practitioners of this
form of
photography consider it to be less artistic than other photographic
pursuits.
Why that ? My explanation would be that nature supplies most of the
ingredients,
and the control of the photographer, besides viewpoint and framing is
quite
limited (black and white is more interpretative). Eventually, two
photographs of, let
say, the Delicate Arch, from a similar perspective are not going to
look that different.
As far as I am concerned, I don't consider myself to be an artist, but
rather a good (hopefully !) technician with knowledge of locations,
conditions,
and photographic tools. I don't have any real "artist's statement"
rather than
bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
the emotions I experienced while being there.
Tuan.
--
Quang-Tuan LUONG at SRI +1(415)859-5138 lu...@ai.sri.com
photographs in The Mountain Gallery at:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/gallery/
steven T koontz
Quang-Tuan Luong wrote:
>
> I don't have any real "artist's statement"
> rather than
> bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
> the emotions I experienced while being there.
>
then the rest of us.. example: my brother house is full of folk art
(junk to me) that I think is ugly but other "artists" say is great
stuff.. When I show my photography to alot of people they really like
it but the "artists" alway have some comment about how it's too
"motionless" or "doesn't make a statement". I probably wouldn't like
it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
why should I care if someone else doesn't? I used to worry about it
but now have learned not to. I shoot for me and have learned I could
care less if some "artist" thinks it's art...I'm the one who has to
look at it!
--
steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
sko...@mindspring.com
Bob Zwarick
In article <35762964...@mindspring.com>, sko...@mindspring.com wrote:
|...
|sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
|then the rest of us.. example: my brother house is full of folk art
|(junk to me) that I think is ugly but other "artists" say is great
|stuff.. When I show my photography to alot of people they really like
|it but the "artists" alway have some comment about how it's too
|"motionless" or "doesn't make a statement". I probably wouldn't like
|it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
|why should I care if someone else doesn't? I used to worry about it
|but now have learned not to. I shoot for me and have learned I could
|care less if some "artist" thinks it's art...I'm the one who has to
|look at it!
|
There are two kinds of 'artists' those who bitch and moan about others work
and those who shoot :-))
Bob
'Never sign a thing, ask an Indian first.'
Geoff Wise
Given your interest in mountaineering, I think all you have to be is a good
craftsman as your subject matter oozes drama. Personally, I think
Wilderness Photography is more masochism, sweet mascohism.
Geoff Wise Wise's Wilderness
wi...@zip.com.au http://www.zip.com.au/~wises
PO Box 3042R, Rosemeadow NSW 2560, Australia
Quang-Tuan Luong wrote in message <357615B1...@ai.sri.com>...
Richard Knoppow
nv...@anv.net (Bob Zwarick) wrote:
The first are art critics Learning the jargon of art criticism is an
ammusing endeavor.
>'Never sign a thing, ask an Indian first.'
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
evp...@insync.net
Is color landscape photography art? Jack W. Dykinga, Eliot Porter, Ernst
Haas, an occaisional Muench, Jim Bones, Galen Rowell's Tibet photos, several
japanese photographers... I know there are more I am just not aware of them.
The thing that transforms normal photography into art is the seeing, the
amount of personal involvement the photographer has with his/her subject and
the ability for us the audience to interact with that vision. A lot of great
looking landscape photography is just photography of great looking or exotic
landscape; Nothing wrong with that, it's just that sometimes I wonder where
the photographer's heart, soul, intellect, sense of humor, sense of
themselves is. I recently made my first trip to Big Bend National Park and as
a photographer I came away feeling defeated. As a human I came away feeling
changed and charged up. Cheers, Ellis
In article <35767ad4.2256261758@nntp.netcruiser>,
dick...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> nv...@anv.net (Bob Zwarick) wrote:
>
> >In article <35762964...@mindspring.com>, sko...@mindspring.com wrote:
I probably wouldn't like
> >|it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
> >|why should I care if someone else doesn't? > >Bob
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
mla...@aol.com
In article <357615B1...@ai.sri.com>,
Quang-Tuan Luong <lu...@ai.sri.com> wrote:
> As far as I am concerned, I don't consider myself to be an artist, but
> rather a good (hopefully !) technician with knowledge of locations,
> conditions,
> and photographic tools. I don't have any real "artist's statement"
> rather than
> bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
> the emotions I experienced while being there.
I don't consider myself an artist either but the last sentence sounds like a
pretty good definition of art. Paraphrased, you're creating a likeness of the
subject, based on your emotions. The emotion, "That's pretty" is
certainly a valid one.
Having done a fair amount of watercolor painting (with and without the
numbers!), it was important to me (and others I know) to depict the scene
basically as it was. Sure, telephone poles get left out and trees get moved
but that's not done to create art, it is a compositional tool - it simply
looks better with some elements changed. Knowing paint, brushes and paper is
no different than cameras, lenses and film.
Anyway, having the "eye" for a scene, composing it the way you want and
getting it onto your medium is what realistic painting is all about. If that's
art (and it is) then so is photography, color or B&W.
The problem with calling myself an "artist" is that it sounds uppity and I'm
not that kind of a person (or at least, I try not to be).
Mike
Jay Wenner
steven T koontz (sko...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: >
: sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
: then the rest of us..
[step up on soapbox]
For the majority of us, photography is a hobby. We do the 9 to 5 (really
8 to 6) argue with traffic, deal with all the crap life deals and then
we have a few hours a week of "free time." I use this free time to do
what _I_ like. Many photographers are concerned if other people like
their work, but the main point is if you like your own work. Do you enjoy
it? That is, you you enjoy the whole photographic process? Some people
enjoy buying and discussing equipment more than clicking the shutter.
Fine. That's a hobby in itself. I enjoy trampin' the woods with a camera
in tow. Many consider that "not creative and mundane." Fine. Who cares,
I enjoy it.
I had a guy look though about 10 years of my work and say he didn't
like it. I was surprised, since most people who don't like your work will
pick an image or two and say they like those, but he blew off the whole
works. As I thought about it, it doesn't matter if people don't like
my work because I'm not really _trying_ to sell it. Sure, I've sold a
few prints, but it hardly amounts to anything compared to the equipment
and time investment. Screw it, I shoot for me. If that means I'm not
an artist, so be it.
[step off soapbox]
Jay Wenner
ma...@my-dejanews.com
To really be able to talk about art we would first have to define it, and
that would be very, very hard. So art, to most people, comes down to what
it's been said here: Art is that thingh that moves me and my emotions. So
to many people Andy Warhole's pieces are not art, but to many other they are,
why is that? Well simiple because it makes some people feel something, good
or bad, and it doesn't too other.
So I agree with Jay W., I take pictures for myself, so that when I see that
picture again I get moved as I did when taken the picture. Though I do not
consider myself an artist I do not think Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Micheal Angelo,
or any other artist, when painting/creatin, thought on doing this or that so
that people would like his art. They would just paint/create because they
wanted to express themselves, they did it for the pure pleasure it brought
them. Just like it happens with us, photographers, either we use color or
b&w film, we shoot for the pure pleasure, and whatever we use, as long as we
obtain what expected, would be, at the end, our own piece of art.
Besides if everyone liked my pictures I would be worried, for that would mean
I'd be doing nothing good, new or personal. Remember, evey head is a world.
Happy shooting.
ABURR
mao75
In article <6l6fhm$6...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
Roger Cole
[snip]
>sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
>then the rest of us.. example: my brother house is full of folk art
>(junk to me) that I think is ugly but other "artists" say is great
>stuff.. When I show my photography to alot of people they really like
>it but the "artists" alway have some comment about how it's too
>"motionless" or "doesn't make a statement". I probably wouldn't like
>it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
>why should I care if someone else doesn't? I used to worry about it
>but now have learned not to. I shoot for me and have learned I could
>care less if some "artist" thinks it's art...I'm the one who has to
>look at it!
>
>--
>
>
>steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
>sko...@mindspring.com
A-men Steve! Maybe it's art, maybe it isn't, and who really cares?
I'll let the ones who do worry about it. Me, if I like it, that's
good enough. I just shoot and print to make something that I think
looks good. I don't try to express the "Oneness of the wholeness of
Oz" or whatever. If someone else does, fine with me, I wish them the
best.
Roger Cole
Bobschmall
> I don't have any real "artist's statement"
>rather than
>bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
>the emotions I experienced while being there.
A better statement of the meaning of art I have never come across. Ansel Adams
said the same thing in more words.
All art is manipulative in that it attempts to inspire in its audience the
response (emotional, intellectual, whatever) desired by the artist. If your
work manipulates only yourself, it is no less art for that.
Bob
DaGronk
Two words: Elliot Porter.
Nicholas O. Lindan
DaGronk wrote:
>
> Two words: Elliot Porter.
One word: Zzzzzz.
Grcolts
>I had a guy look though about 10 years of my work and say he didn't
>like it. I was surprised, since most people who don't like your work will
>pick an image or two and say they like those, but he blew off the whole
>works. As I thought about it, it doesn't matter if people don't like
>my work because I'm not really _trying_ to sell it. Sure, I've sold a
>few prints, but it hardly amounts to anything compared to the equipment
>and time investment. Screw it, I shoot for me. If that means I'm not
>an artist, so be it.
>
>[step off soapbox]
>
>Jay Wenner
>
>
Who cares? The work you shoot says alot about who you really are. Your work
counts for you. Shoot for yourself and enjoy your artistic endeavors!
The next person who looks through your work may like it all. It all balances
out.
GQR
Dirk J. Bakker
Quang-Tuan Luong wrote:
>
> Kerry Thalmann wrote:
> >>Although the artistic images are nice, I personally prefer more
> >traditional color landscape photography.
>
> form of
> photography consider it to be less artistic than other photographic
> pursuits.
> Why that ? My explanation would be that nature supplies most of the
> ingredients,
> and the control of the photographer, besides viewpoint and framing is
> quite
> limited (black and white is more interpretative). Eventually, two
> photographs of, let
> say, the Delicate Arch, from a similar perspective are not going to
> look that different.
>
> rather a good (hopefully !) technician with knowledge of locations,
> conditions,
> rather than
> bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
> the emotions I experienced while being there.
>
>
> --
> Quang-Tuan LUONG at SRI +1(415)859-5138 lu...@ai.sri.com
> photographs in The Mountain Gallery at:
> http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/gallery/
Hello Tuan,
My working definition:
A work of Art is a tool of the soul.
To "bring[ing] back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me
of the emotions I experienced while being there." is just as eloquent and
equally meaningful.
We have been too much subjected to the definition of art that has been
imposed on us by an elite. We need to pluck it and simply take it back.
As to limited control in color photography, give a look at the work of
Eliot Porter or Freeman Patterson in Portraits of Earth, 1987, Firefly.
Perhaps they were never told the same or chose not to believe it.
We become what we think of ourselves.
Just a thought.
Dirk
F Jake
Art, schmart but it is Photography!
Ever notice how anyone who paints or draws is an "Artist" no matter how good it
is?
Jake
jwd
F Jake wrote:
>
> Art, schmart but it is Photography!
> Ever notice how anyone who paints or draws is an "Artist" no matter how good it is?
drawing.
> Jake
Jeff
Richard Knoppow
jwd <jwd...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
Which begs the question. What is a "real" artist and for that
matter, what is "real" art? All too often it is simply something or
someone conforming to a particular set of predjudices with which you
happen to agree.
I challenge anyone to produce a definition of art which can stand
unqualified.
jwd
Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> jwd <jwd...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> >F Jake wrote:
> >>
> >> Art, schmart but it is Photography!
> >> Ever notice how anyone who paints or draws is an "Artist" no matter how good it is?
> >Not to "real" artists and people who know anything about painting or
> >drawing.
> >> Jake
> >Jeff
> Which begs the question. What is a "real" artist and for that
> matter, what is "real" art? All too often it is simply something or
> someone conforming to a particular set of predjudices with which you
> happen to agree.
is not necessarily regarded as an artist. Having been around individuals
in the "art world", (it seems impossible to say that without making it
sound pretentious, I'm sorry.) that is people involved with the
creation, sales, conneseurship, installation, appraisal education, etc.
etc. of art, they are certainly much more specific about who they regard
as srtist. It seems that this rather large group that is involved on a
daily basis with art is at least worthy of note. Are they right about
who is or is not an artist? It doesn't matter to the response I was
making to the original post. The point is "drawers" and "painters" are
not automatically considered "Artist" regardless of the quality of their
work by everyone. And one might say that they are not automatically
considered as artists by the most important group to recognize artists,
the art community.
You say "all too often" but it sounds like you means always. If were
are looking to define art, which I wasn't, we can start by using your
definition for art: Art or an artist is "simply something or someone
conforming to a particular set of predjudices with which you happen to
following way (or in other ways, I'm just tossing this out): "conform"
meaning "participating in"; the "set of prejudices" are the "practices
and conventions"; the "you" a collective "you" which I would define as
"an artistic community"; "Agree" would then mean "find significant"
(since it seems too restrictive to believe that one could appreciate
Only that with which they personally agree). So your definition of art
or an artist, put forward with your prejudices replaced by mine ;) would
be: simply something or someone participating in the practices and
conventions which the artistic community finds significant.
> I challenge anyone to produce a definition of art which can stand
> unqualified.
again must it stand unqualified? What is your "prejudice" ;) such that
Any definition of art must be an unqualified one.
Rgeards
Jeff
George Stocking
The fact is that color landscape is frowned upon and disdained in almost
every artisic circle that I know. Eco-porn and all that. A couple of years
ago, a friend of mine applied to grad school for photography (MFA),
submitting a portfolio of large format color transparencies. (They were
actually pretty good......a few were excellent) He was rebuffed without
comment from all except ASU. (They talked to him because his undergraduate
degree was from the same institution) Basically he was told that color
landscape wasn't art, they then showed him what was currently the "cutting
edge" of fine art photography. According to most (in the art world),
color landscape has been "done to death", which somehow invalidates it
from the forum of discussion. The old, "if its been done before, it is
passe".
Of course, this whole discussion comes down to the old "what-is art"
question. Ask 100 people, and you will get 100 different definitions, and
that is becauses art is in the eye of the beholder. We are all a product
of our life experiences; we all bring a particular set of prejudices to
the game. Many of my deepest emotional responses to life come from my
interaction with the landscape......that is why I shoot color landscape
for a living. Like everyone else alive, I rationalize what I do, otherwise
I wouldn't be able to it.
For me, art is defined by compositional power. That is, the sum total of
lines, spaces and shapes must come together to make an image "more" than
what it is. The image creates its own power. Subject matter becomes
basically irelevant. It is reported that Edward Weston's bell pepper was
banned from some venues (in his time). Talk about power and movement.
Great art demands your attention, it will follow you around the room.
This is the ultimate challenge for me. To go out into the eternally
amazing wilderness and recognize that moment when the various elements of
compositional power come together. And then create images that reflect the
overpowering emotions that I feel when I stand on a prtuclar spot in a
particlar time.
Is color landscape art? Has it been done before? If it has, does that fact
then invalidate the results? After all, why paint portraits? The Mona Lisa
is already hanging on the wall. Why paint landscapes? Hey, Monet did that.
Why bother trying? Because art is about more than a picture on the wall,
or the statue in front of the museum. It is about human endeavor. It is
about peoples responses to the world around us. Sometimes a picture of a
bell pepper becomes more than just a pepper; and sometimes a photo of a
flower becomes more than grass and petals.
RABASTE
A few days ago I started writing this post and being so busy with the opening
of my new studio, I never sent it. There have been some good new post since but
here it is.
Hi you guys!
Since I find this post interesting and have some of my own ideas on the
subject, I figured I would quote some of you and place my comments within the
quotes. Like this my comments will appear as reactions to each statement even
though I never talk too much about what I think about the subject and never try
to heat up a debate (that one's big lie by the way!). For sure it's a touchy
subject with a lot of photographers, other artists and students (boy don't
remind me!). So I am well prepared and have 2 brand new fire extinguishers
sitting right by me (I even brought the one from the studio!). By the end of
the post I will probably have come a full circle around my ideas on the
subject. I welcome your comments because I need more of your input guys
(girls)!
Quang-Tuan Luong <lu...@ai.sri.com>
wrote
1 It seems that most people, including many of the practitioners of this
1 form of
1 photography consider it to be less artistic than other photographic
1 pursuits.
1 Why that ? My explanation would be that nature supplies most of the
1 ingredients,
1 and the control of the photographer, besides viewpoint and framing is
1 quite
1 limited (black and white is more interpretative). Eventually, two
1 photographs of, let
1 say, the Delicate Arch, from a similar perspective are not going to
1 look that different.
I often point the fact that if my 7 year old daughter can stand right next to
me and depress the cable release. Who's taken the picture? And if she can do it
again after I insert another film-holder? If an art-director standing by me
clicked the shutter and essentially took the photograph, would he be able to
claim all rights to the photo? Or, is it that when time has passed, can you
tell that it was a certain photographer who took all these pictures you are
looking at? If so, can it then be called art? Does he have to be dead? If my
daughter comes with me on all my trips, clicks the shutter (because she thinks
its fun) and I get to be recognized (no chance at that!). Is it now her work or
mine? What is left of it after I die? To the same extent, when "Requiem" is
performed, can you say that the people in the orchestra create art or is it
Mozart's art that transcends? Nevertheless, these performers are called
artists. So if they don't create art, why are they called artists and what do
they do all their life? I believe they live for music and they somehow behave
as artists, in their lifestyle, their social behaviour (from one extreme to
another...) (and that would include their self-proclaimed title as artists)...
But until they create something new, extravagant, moving...whatever you may
call it, it will remain Mozart's art and as long as history will exist in the
generation to come. And I haven't mentionned CD players! So, is it any
different for photographers?
1 As far as I am concerned, I don't consider myself to be an artist, but
1 rather a good (hopefully !) technician with knowledge of locations,
1 conditions,
1 and photographic tools. I don't have any real "artist's statement"
1 rather than
1 bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
1 the emotions I experienced while being there.
1111
See what I mean, just like I see myself! An artisan it is called. As long as
you or me or anyone else does not create with intention, we can all call
ourselves artisans (or craftsmen if you favor that term). We take photographs,
sometimes like other photographers (meaning in their style) and maybe sometimes
do even better. Still in the style... see what I mean?
I believe art is like a religion, as long as you don't live it, you might just
call yourself an impostor. I believe art has to do with the struggle of the
living, the fear of death and everything that it brings to influence the human
psyche. So I am not an artist, so what?
steven T koontz <sko...@mindspring.com>
wrote
2 sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
2 then the rest of us.. example: my brother house is full of folk art
2 (junk to me) that I think is ugly but other "artists" say is great
2 stuff..
I know what you mean, individually it is bad art and probably even bad
craftsmanship! Look at all those folk festivals and the awful stuff that is
sold. Nevertheless, at some point it is called folk-art. That is regular folks
like you and me (non self-proclaimed artists), trying to survive in a world
that doesn't make sense. You are just about born that you know that in life
there is only ONE thing you can be sure off, you MUST die! Isn't that scary? So
when you look at the big picture, you can see that as a whole we behave like
true artists. We need to create to survive. Some are just better than others!
Look at some well known moron who claims a label on a can of soup is art! I
think it is thanks to people like him that we attach some value at folk-art.
Photography has never been accepted as an art. For the longest time it was
because it could be repeated and an art object ("un objet d'art" in french) was
considered first because of its uniqueness and then other criteria. But art
changes as it lives. Past its creation, it is art history. Museum (and
photographers' walls) are full of art history (a lot of it is beautiful by the
way!). Maybe your brother sees something to which he can relate and you cannot.
I don't (and actually run away from it)but I accept it and give it the
importance I think it deserves. That already puts me a step closer to the
obnoxious self-proclaimed artist, you could call me a snob I guess. It remains
folk-art in my view and relatively uninteresting because of the little
education I was able to grasp along the years.
2 When I show my photography to alot of people they really like
2 it but the "artists" alway have some comment about how it's too
2 "motionless" or "doesn't make a statement". I probably wouldn't like
2 it if it did make a statement..
It does Steve, it says about you to start with and I think its great you like
serene "motionless" prints. (You should call them images by the way or at worst
photographs). Prints come out of a darkroom, chemicals... you create images,
photographs. I like them too. And I do like other stuff as well. When I go to
the Ansel Adams Museum here in San Francisco, I look at these pictures and I
wonder why it is that they stunn me, I can certainly see why they amaze a lot
of people (even though most folks like color photography, ever noticed how your
mom will be happy to hear she's getting pictures of her grand kids and
complains when she gets them because they are NOT in color...).
2 If I like serene "motionless" prints,
2 why should I care if someone else doesn't? I used to worry about it
2 but now have learned not to. I shoot for me and have learned I could
2 care less if some "artist" thinks it's art...I'm the one who has to
2 look at it!
You should care and the day this happens, tell them their art sucks, you'll
love their reaction! LOL Of course you shoot for yourself, but recognition
will help you progress and probably better than rejection. True, you are the
captain and nobody is on your boat! Pride could turn you into an idiot that
would never come down from its pedestal, but more dangerous is low self-estime
imposed by outsiders because it probably wouldn't help you explore your
potential. Depends on your character.
2222
wrote
3 Is color landscape photography art? Jack W. Dykinga, Eliot Porter, Ernst
3 Haas, an occaisional Muench, Jim Bones, Galen Rowell's Tibet photos,
several
3 japanese photographers... I know there are more I am just not aware of
them.
3 The thing that transforms normal photography into art is the seeing, the
3 amount of personal involvement the photographer has with his/her subject
and
3 the ability for us the audience to interact with that vision.
The audience certainly has to do with validating (or rejecting) an artist
beyond what critics call a falacious statement (meaning I, the photographer
does this for that even though you see only nothing) but many artists were
discovered posthumely. Does it have to be? Meaning that the audience (or the
critics) does not necessarely hold the truth and some true great artist never
saw the light of day (if I can say:) because of many reasons (sociological,
political, morals of those times in which the artist lived...). When a
photographer takes a scenic shot, I would say he is very involved, he's in it!
Involvment might be a prerequesite but I don't think it is all. Some art is
just not understood by the masses just like Stephen does not relate to
folk-art. That's expected, the world would be a very boring place otherwise.
"Vive la difference!"
3 A lot of greate
3 looking landscape photography is just photography of great looking or
exotic
3 landscape; Nothing wrong with that, it's just that sometimes I wonder where
3 the photographer's heart, soul, intellect, sense of humor, sense of
3 themselves is. I recently made my first trip to Big Bend National Park and
as
3 a photographer I came away feeling defeated. As a human I came away feeling
3 changed and charged up. Cheers, Ellis
For what comes next, I am just kidding OK?! What happened? Left your
heart, soul, intellect... at the gate with the Ranger?
Now I'm fairly serious again... That's one of my ideas, you must be and feel
alive first. Your defeat as a photographer will be beneficial in the long run.
It's part of the learning process. In the meantime you are alive and you are
charged up. Great! I believe there are two purposes to creating art. One would
be to be imortalized and the other would be to feel alive. The struggle to
create art might just be enough to stay alive. History shows us you must be
somehow deranged to create true art. Being crazy does not warrant the creation
of art! But in no case does it have to be succesfull. In fact I believe it can
rarely be attained for yourself. You can amaze others but will get bored of
your stuff really quickly. The good thing is if you feel good about your stuff,
the day you feel down, you just look at it and it will charge you up. Those
nice pictures on the walls that everybody hangs everywhere. Simple psychology I
suppose. When I went to Big Bend the first time, I was rather down, after, I
felt much better. Nature does this to a lot of people, that's why people like
to go on hikes! Art I believe is soul searching, it goes beyond what anything
can bring you, when nothing can bring you joy to live. Doesn't mean you have to
be feeling down to create art, but check any recognized artist and see when
they created their greatest art, at a point of struggle.
3333
wen...@biosci.cbs.umn.edu (Jay Wenner)
wrote
4 For the majority of us, photography is a hobby.
True, count me out because I do that as a profession. Nothing is more difficult
than to photograph for fun when you do photography as a profession. It happens
that sometimes I don't even think of myself as a photographer when I work
because it is not challenging enough (of course it has to do with your
technical ability too!). Maybe that's why so many photographers like
wood-working and so many art-directors like photography!
4 Do you enjoyit? That is, you you enjoy the whole photographic process?
4 Some people enjoy buying and discussing equipment more than clicking the
4 shutter.
4 Fine. That's a hobby in itself. I enjoy trampin' the woods with a camera
4 in tow. Many consider that "not creative and mundane." Fine. Who cares,
4 I enjoy it.
My cousin who's a CPA likes golfing because he likes to walk on something else
than marble, tar and concrete! To each his own! You like photography, great! We
have a point in common.
4444
wrote
5 To really be able to talk about art we would first have to define it, and
5 that would be very, very hard. So art, to most people, comes down to what
5 it's been said here: Art is that thingh that moves me and my emotions. So
5 to many people Andy Warhole's pieces are not art, but to many other they
are,
5 why is that? Well simiple because it makes some people feel something,
good
5 or bad, and it doesn't too other.
Well Mao75, on the surface, very lightly what you say is correct. What my art
teacher would say is (and I have to credit him each time I mention this...), if
and when you have sex, do you feel something? Is it good? And when you are
done, do you feel bad? (but now I hear of some pill... good could last
longer... :)) Is it ART though? Maybe.
Well I am glad you didn't say art has to make a statement, because it doesn't
have to. It could but it is unimportant. You all feel it and so do I. But that
is a statement to others, to you it has to! Otherwise its like going to your
job (if you have a career, it might be different).
5 Though I do not
5 consider myself an artist I do not think Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Micheal
Angelo,
5 or any other artist, when painting/creatin, thought on doing this or that
so
5 that people would like his art.
Yes they did, think again! Van Gogh particularly wanted to force the art world
(mainly impressionists) to see through his eyes and show them how wrong they
were to consider what he probably thought was poor folk-art (all those
impressionists who painted pretty pictures while he was doing something so much
more important). On the otherhand, he really didn't care if they did or not, a
purist of the truest kind. Van Gogh became obsessed by the symbolic and
expressive values of colors and began to use them for this purpose rather than,
as did the Impressionists, for the reproduction of visual appearances,
atmosphere, and light (hello photographers!) Thanks to his brother Theo, he
was able to survive because he couldn't sell his paintings, nobody wanted them!
He sold only one painting during his lifetime! And he knew they were better! I
think they are! Monet, Renoir, Sisley and Bazille all disagreed with the
Academie AND wanted to achieve recognition AND financial security. In 1874,
Manet, Degas, Cézanne, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley and Monet put together an
exhibition which has been vastly talked about in the history books but was,
unfortunately, a contemporary disaster. Even with Manet (a critique) as a
friend, Monet never recovered financially.
Do you really think they were totally uninterested in other people recognizing
their work and disinterested.
Michael Angelo got everybody upset at the Vatican because he wasn't doing what
they wanted, he knew what they wanted wasn't good enough and old styled, plus
his paintings were too simplistic and reminiscent of the pagan anciant Greeks
to the greatest sorrow of the pope. He came to a close call of never doing the
Sixtine Chapel! He didn't have the money to do the art he wanted, always
starting huge projects and never finishing them, he had to find somebody else
to pay for it. He had to eat too! And yes, he wanted people to like his art!
Plus he saw the body as the manifestation of the soul. He IS the most convinced
humanist of this time. Come on, you think he painted religious fresco so people
would put him down, he too wanted the world (the rich and powerful) to see
through his eyes. He had the satisfaction of knowing he was ahead of the game
but needed others' approval to prove it to himself as well!
5 They would just paint/create because they
5 wanted to express themselves, they did it for the pure pleasure it brought
5 them.
You know I disagree with you but give it some thought. Not JUST because they
wanted to express themselves. When you get to the end of your life, do you want
to take all your photographs and negs with you into the grave? Or don't you
think that since you had such a great time taken them, it would be of some use
to your descendants to see "you", through your work in a 100 years. I am not
saying all your work, at least just the ones you are proud of. I believe
Michael Angelo wanted his art to last for as long as possible. That's why he
put the dyes in the wet plaster. Fresco they are called (means fresh in
italian), so they would be sealed. I am not talking about the people who wanted
to keep the hundreds of years of grime on the ceiling just for the sake of
preserving its travel through time! That's why it had to be cleaned. Michael
Angelo would have approved!
5 Just like it happens with us, photographers, either we use color or
5 b&w film, we shoot for the pure pleasure, and whatever we use, as long as
we
5 obtain what expected, would be, at the end, our own piece of art.
My hat to you! A true Van Gogh or Michael Angelo! Well I sure hope you don't
get what you want each time, or else it won't be too long before you get bored!
Maybe you are an exceptionally good technician and you will be our next Ansel
Adams (or at least rival his expertise :-)) . Then from our grave we'll all
come back and open this debate again! LOL
5555
wrote
6 I don't consider myself an artist either
Welcome to the club! :)
6 but the last sentence sounds like a
6 pretty good definition of art. Paraphrased, you're creating a likeness of
the
6 subject, based on your emotions. The emotion, "That's pretty" is
6 certainly a valid one.
To a certain level, yes! But I know an artist would not settle for prettiness
without intent. I do and I am quite contempt for now with the way I shoot. But
I also know I can't stay at that level, I have to move forward, and soon (like
10 years from now maybe?:))
6 Sure, telephone poles get left out and trees get moved
6 but that's not done to create art, it is a compositional tool - it simply
6 looks better with some elements changed.
Not necessarely, not everybody uses Photoshop (a registered trade mark of
Adobe) while painting :-)) Some leave things in on purpose as well.
6 Knowing paint, brushes and paper is
6 no different than cameras, lenses and film.
Absolutely, actually photographers can probably more easely start from scratch
than painters!
6 Anyway, having the "eye" for a scene, composing it the way you want and
6 getting it onto your medium is what realistic painting is all about. If
that's
6 art (and it is) then so is photography, color or B&W.
Realistic painting is no longer considered art but art history by most
knowledgeable people (I do not claim to be one of those, I just comment...).
There was a brief revival with all the paintings of chromes of those
extravagants cars and motorcycles from the 50's and that was to debase
photography I imagine. Look at painted billboards, they are just great! Is it
ART? I know nothing about art but enough to say I like very little
impressionits' work. As for photography, well, I believe little has to do with
art even though I greatly appreciate art that uses photography as a medium. I
think art has to do with intent, execution and life.
Now that should be enough material in one post to last for a while and I sure
hope I didn't spend all that time not to get any feedback from you guys!
It's late!
Goodnight!
Michel
6666
Tom Reed
On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, Richard Knoppow wrote:
> I challenge anyone to produce a definition of art which can stand
> unqualified.
How about, 'art is what artists do' :-)
Tom R. tr...@omicron.csustan.edu
It isn't true that there's a community of light, a bonfire of the world.
Everyone carries his own, his lonely own. -- John Steinbeck
evp...@insync.net
> It isn't true that there's a community of light, a bonfire of the world.
> Everyone carries his own, his lonely own. -- John Steinbeck
I thought I'd tie two meaningless threads together in a gordian knot: Color
landscape photography can be art unless it is published in Shutterbug. (for
those not familiar with the first thread go to the
"rec.photo.equipment.large-format" newsgroup. For those not familiar with the
second thread, please go to the "rec.photo.miscellaneous" newsgroup. For
those of you who could care less: bravo!
Denis Kermicle
> On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> > I challenge anyone to produce a definition of art which can stand
> > unqualified.
>
I like my American Heritage definition:
art n, 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the
work of nature.
Pretty much covers it all.
Denis Kermicle
Richard Moore
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> Which begs the question. What is a "real" artist and for that
> matter, what is "real" art? All too often it is simply something or
> someone conforming to a particular set of predjudices with which you
> happen to agree.
> unqualified.
Alfred Stieglitz said something to this effect, that whenever a person
speaks about a work of "art," he(or she) is in fact only talking about
themeselves.
Richard Moore
ELYOD SAMOHT
Sherwood Veith
Too much intellectualizing. Yes, yes, yes. All photography is art, from
the passport Polaroids (a little extreme) and my 7 year-olds single use
snaps (of stuffed animals and Barbie dolls), to Galen Rowell, and David
Muench.
Art is creativity at its best and worst. Even more, art is totally
subjective - and your opinion of your own work is the most important. If
you say your work is art, then it is. As we become better "artists" our
opinion of our own work may change, but that helps us grow and improve.
To blow off an amateur's or novice's work because he/she is inexperienced is
to snuff out creativity, and possibly and ultimately good art.
Don't sweat the details, CREATE!
Woody
evp...@insync.net wrote in message <6l6fg0$egj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Is color landscape photography art? Jack W. Dykinga, Eliot Porter, Ernst
>Haas, an occaisional Muench, Jim Bones, Galen Rowell's Tibet photos,
several
>japanese photographers... I know there are more I am just not aware of
them.
>The thing that transforms normal photography into art is the seeing, the
>amount of personal involvement the photographer has with his/her subject
and
>the ability for us the audience to interact with that vision. A lot of
great
>looking landscape photography is just photography of great looking or
exotic
>landscape; Nothing wrong with that, it's just that sometimes I wonder where
>the photographer's heart, soul, intellect, sense of humor, sense of
>themselves is. I recently made my first trip to Big Bend National Park and
as
>a photographer I came away feeling defeated. As a human I came away feeling
>changed and charged up. Cheers, Ellis
>
>In article <35767ad4.2256261758@nntp.netcruiser>,
> dick...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> nv...@anv.net (Bob Zwarick) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <35762964...@mindspring.com>, sko...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>I probably wouldn't like
>> >|it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
>> >|why should I care if someone else doesn't? > >Bob
Ken Neely
Just a further opinion on the root subject :
I just participated in a local photo contest, and helped
move work during the judging. It was apparent from the
results that the basis of this whole issue is simply -
subjective opinion.
What constitutes art, anyway ?
There are only two criteria to apply - whether the artist
likes it ( in the case of non- compensated work) or whether
the public ( i.e. client) likes it.
Nothing else matters - It's nice, but not essential to the
intrinsic value of the work, if others appreciate and enjoy
it. If the makers are compensated for their work, in the
professional example, then it's essential that their client
like it. Doesn't necessarily make it "art" though. On the
other hand, if the maker likes it personally, it IS art.
Sorry if this doesn't fit the normal definition (whatever
THAT may be) of art, but like I said, it's entirely a matter
of subjective opinion.
KN
David Ingamells
Art is a pile of bricks in the Tate Gallery (London).
--
David Ingamells
remove 1aa1 from address before replying.
Quang-Tuan Luong <lu...@ai.sri.com> wrote in article
<357615B1...@ai.sri.com>...
> Kerry Thalmann wrote:
> >>Although the artistic images are nice, I personally prefer more
> >traditional color landscape photography.
>
> It seems that most people, including many of the practitioners of this
> form of
> photography consider it to be less artistic than other photographic
> pursuits.
> Why that ? My explanation would be that nature supplies most of the
> ingredients,
> and the control of the photographer, besides viewpoint and framing is
> quite
> limited (black and white is more interpretative). Eventually, two
> photographs of, let
> say, the Delicate Arch, from a similar perspective are not going to
> look that different.
>
> As far as I am concerned, I don't consider myself to be an artist, but
> rather a good (hopefully !) technician with knowledge of locations,
> conditions,
> and photographic tools. I don't have any real "artist's statement"
> rather than
> bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
> the emotions I experienced while being there.
>
Beakman
Sherwood Veith (sher...@telenet.net) wrote:
: Too much intellectualizing. Yes, yes, yes. All photography is art, from
: the passport Polaroids (a little extreme) and my 7 year-olds single use
: snaps (of stuffed animals and Barbie dolls), to Galen Rowell, and David
: Muench.
: Art is creativity at its best and worst. Even more, art is totally
: subjective - and your opinion of your own work is the most important. If
: you say your work is art, then it is. As we become better "artists" our
: opinion of our own work may change, but that helps us grow and improve.
: To blow off an amateur's or novice's work because he/she is inexperienced is
: to snuff out creativity, and possibly and ultimately good art.
: Don't sweat the details, CREATE!
: Woody
First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
words for it.
Second, I think that too many people give short shrift to "craft". There
is absolutely nothing low, demeaning, or inherently of little value in
craft, yet people seem to think that to call someone a great craftsperson
is somehow insulting. To my mind a great craftsperson should be put up
on the same pedestal (and sometimes an even taller one) than the "artist".
Therefore, I find nothing wrong in calling a photo hobbyist a
craftsperson rather than an artist. This does not mean that hobbist is
*not* an artist, it only means that just because someone takes pictures
and is creative he/she is not necessarily an artist, which brings me to my
last point...
I believe that an artist is someone who trys to *communicate* some
feeling, emotion, or message through a creative act. This means that the
intention of the photographer is paramount. If you take a picture of
your kid so that you can put it in the family album as a keepsake -- this
is *not* what being an artist is about (and there's nothing wrong with
that). If, on the other hand, you took photos of your kid because you
were trying to express some ideas you had about "life in suburbia", for
example, that would be art.
To say that someone is, or is not, an artist is neither a compliment or
an insult. It is merely a descriptive term for some specific type of
creative act.
David
--
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
David Fokos
bea...@netcom.com
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
evp...@insync.net
"If you can't name a thing, point to it." William Burroughs
"Look,there it goes." Laurie Anderson
According to Max Ernst and man ray there are three relationships involved in
the decisioning of what gets construed as art: there is the relationship
between the subject and the artist, then there is the relationship between
the viewer and the made object, and finally there is the relationship between
the artist and his/her audience. Color landscape photography is paradoxically
easy to reject/ difficult to accept for a modern "educated" audience, because
it mostly seems so impersonally made. It is, for the most part, hard to see
the "hand" of the artist at work, so they think that what is shown is a mere
recording of what was there. When we look at a stunning Ansel Adams or John
Sexton black & white print of a landscape, we think first: "what a print!".
Looking at a color image of the same scene I think our first impression must
be "wow! What a place!" Curiously I think that our Modern sensibilities have
both tuned us to the idea of nature as a place of beauty, and also turned us
away from the acceptence of a color photographic depiction of that beauty. If
we cannot have it at first hand, we want it obviously abstracted. Of course,
if you are the creater and the audience, all bets are off! Ellis Vener
In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
Mike McDonald
In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
> First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
> words for it.
By that logic then, sculpture isn't art. Painting isn't art. Drawing isn't
art. Doesn't leave much to be art.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Dirk J. Bakker
Hello,
Beg to differ. Another way of saying it is: using a typewriter does not
make one a writer. One is a discipline, the other a way of life, a
conviction. They're NOT mutually exclusive, mind you. Just not the same.
Dirk
Beakman
Mike McDonald (mik...@mikemac.com) wrote:
: In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
: bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
: > First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
: > words for it.
: By that logic then, sculpture isn't art. Painting isn't art. Drawing isn't
: art. Doesn't leave much to be art.
sculpture does not necessarily = art, nor does painting or drawing. I
draw a map to my house on a napkin, an illustrator paints a picture of an
insect for an entymological journal or a cross-section of the Earth for
National Geographic, or a sculptor makes perfect replicas of flowers out
of glass for a university. None of these things are art -- they are
craft and they should be praised as such. That still leaves an awful lot
of things which can still be called art, including SOME sculptures, SOME
paintings, and SOME drawings, but not all of them.
Michael Liczbanski
Didn't you know that
"the-art-is-what-I-consider-art-not-that-worthless-shit-you-think-is-art-you
-assehole!"
Michael
Mike McDonald wrote in message ...
>In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
> bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
>
>> First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
>> words for it.
>
> By that logic then, sculpture isn't art. Painting isn't art. Drawing
isn't
>art. Doesn't leave much to be art.
>
> Mike McDonald
> mik...@mikemac.com
>
Brian Ellis
Very well put.
Jay Wenner wrote:
> steven T koontz (sko...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : >
> : sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
> : then the rest of us..
>
> [step up on soapbox]
>
> For the majority of us, photography is a hobby. We do the 9 to 5 (really
> 8 to 6) argue with traffic, deal with all the crap life deals and then
> we have a few hours a week of "free time." I use this free time to do
> what _I_ like. Many photographers are concerned if other people like
> their work, but the main point is if you like your own work. Do you enjoy
> it? That is, you you enjoy the whole photographic process? Some people
> enjoy buying and discussing equipment more than clicking the shutter.
> Fine. That's a hobby in itself. I enjoy trampin' the woods with a camera
> in tow. Many consider that "not creative and mundane." Fine. Who cares,
> I enjoy it.
Kerry Thalmann
Beakman wrote:
>
> Mike McDonald (mik...@mikemac.com) wrote:
> : In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
> : bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
>
> : > First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
> : > words for it.
>
> : By that logic then, sculpture isn't art. Painting isn't art. Drawing isn't
> : art. Doesn't leave much to be art.
>
> draw a map to my house on a napkin, an illustrator paints a picture of an
> insect for an entymological journal or a cross-section of the Earth for
> National Geographic, or a sculptor makes perfect replicas of flowers out
> of glass for a university. None of these things are art -- they are
> craft and they should be praised as such. That still leaves an awful lot
> of things which can still be called art, including SOME sculptures, SOME
> paintings, and SOME drawings, but not all of them.
Hi David,
What about SOME photographs? (BTW, I'm not being facetious. I'm real
curious why you think the others can qualify as either art or craft but
you left photography off the "art" list).
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://home.att.net/~k.thalmann/
David Hay Jones
If there's a choice between commercially successful photography and art
photography for a small audience, I'd choose commerical everytime.
David
Beakman
Kerry Thalmann (K.Tha...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Hi David,
: Kerry
Of course you are quite right -- SOME photography is art and some is
not. I did not intentionally leave it off the list, I was merely
addressing the previous post point-for-point.
jwd
vanilla. I like pina coladas, rainy afternoons and walks on the beach,
too. Wait, what was the point of this thread again?
regards
jwd
sorry couldn't resist ;)
RABASTE
>David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com>
wrote
>If there's a choice between commercially successful photography and art
>photography for a small audience, I'd choose commerical everytime.
>David
Unfortunately this is the way I have chosen. Probably because we all belong to
a society that incites people to seek comfort and consumption rather than
promotes the apreciation of life and innovation in the domain of the arts.
Technology and increased consumption becomes what are the "in" things to do
rather than religion, faith, education or the arts. We have become contemptible
consumers.
For some reason, art and religion remain the most important things to do in
life for many successfull people. Who collects the most art besides museums?
Wealthy people, and not because they like to waste their money. Guess why?
Bye!
Michel
Roger Cole
[stuff I agree with snipped]
>For some reason, art and religion remain the most important things to do in
>life for many successfull people. Who collects the most art besides museums?
>Wealthy people, and not because they like to waste their money. Guess why?
Ah, probably because they can afford it! Not being smart alecky at
all, it is simply true. Personally, if I could make a decent living
(meaning provide the necessities and the money I need to do the things
I want to do, nothing outrageous) and work only part time, I'd do it
in a heart beat. The thing is, everything I like to do takes money -
just look at photography. Film, paper, and chemistry are expensive
enough, or would be if I had plenty of time to use them. Then
consider equipment. Granted, good stuff, especially LF, will last
practically forever, but it would take a good bank roll to get a good
set up. Then there is the fact that society insists on charging money
for pesky things like food, housing, clothes, heat, telephone (a
necessity these days) and so on.
I've often wondered why some people do continue working - why on earth
does Bill Gates go to work in the morning? But for most of us, it
isn't a choice. We do what we have to do, and then try to work in as
much time as we can for what we want to do.
Roger Cole
>
>Bye!
>
>Michel
RUSSELL B BARBER
Ken Neely wrote in message <357EA797...@earthlink.net>...
>There are only two criteria to apply - whether the artist
>likes it ( in the case of non- compensated work) or whether
>the public ( i.e. client) likes it.
>
>KN
Just my own two cents here - For me, it is art if it evokes an emotional
response in me. It does not need to be awe inspiring or cause tears to
spring to my eyes, but if I feel something, if it moves me in some small
way, it is art.
Russell