DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Are you an Artist?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 25, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/01/2016 05:35:20 AM · #1
You may be a photographer, but are you an Artist?

7 thoughts from Roger Ballen
03/01/2016 06:14:56 AM · #2
Thought-provoking stuff. I'll have to watch it again when I have more time.
03/01/2016 08:59:42 AM · #3
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

Thought-provoking stuff. I'll have to watch it again when I have more time.
03/01/2016 09:03:07 AM · #4
Interesting ideas. Well done. I enjoyed the photos, too.
03/01/2016 11:07:50 AM · #5
Thought-provoking. And that's some really dark imagery...
03/01/2016 12:31:40 PM · #6
Yes, very interesting.

I'm not an artist. Not even a Photographer. I just take pictures of whatever catches my attention and I like. I don't go "deep" or try to understand the quintessential element on every scene. My mind hasn't suffered enough traumas to get that artistic neuron loose synapsing with the others in my head.

I definitely admire those with that capacity, the artists.

Message edited by author 2016-03-01 12:36:42.
03/01/2016 12:45:48 PM · #7
That's all fabulously interesting (I mean that sincerely) but at the same time it seems to be promoting the idea that "art" is about the twisted, the disturbing, the downright ugly, and I hate that. I love those images, don't get me wrong, they are incredibly strong. But can't we have the same passion wrapped up in beuaty?
03/01/2016 12:58:43 PM · #8
Loved his photos, the one with the wire would not be well received here and I'm sad to say that that would be because of the wire. Emotionally they touch the uncomfortable zone and as such require a longer than wow moment to be appreciated and an acceptance to be in contact with the negativity that might arise in us.

03/01/2016 01:07:17 PM · #9
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

That's all fabulously interesting (I mean that sincerely) but at the same time it seems to be promoting the idea that "art" is about the twisted, the disturbing, the downright ugly, and I hate that. I love those images, don't get me wrong, they are incredibly strong. But can't we have the same passion wrapped up in beuaty?


We need both, but the easy acceptance of the beautiful and lazy easiness with which we can absorb feel good emotions, means that as a whole we tend to predominantly slide towards the light half of everything, unfortunately this is probably to our detriment.
03/01/2016 02:09:17 PM · #10
Originally posted by jagar:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

That's all fabulously interesting (I mean that sincerely) but at the same time it seems to be promoting the idea that "art" is about the twisted, the disturbing, the downright ugly, and I hate that. I love those images, don't get me wrong, they are incredibly strong. But can't we have the same passion wrapped up in beuaty?


We need both, but the easy acceptance of the beautiful and lazy easiness with which we can absorb feel good emotions, means that as a whole we tend to predominantly slide towards the light half of everything, unfortunately this is probably to our detriment.


I believe everything is about balance. We need the dark to pull us towards earth, and the light to rescue us from the dark.
03/01/2016 02:26:47 PM · #11
New York Times Film Critic A.O. Scott on the Oscars and "Better Living Through Criticism"
Originally posted by Program Abstract:

Film critic A.O. Scott joins us to explore such questions as what do we mean when we talk about a "good" movie? As a longtime film critic for the New York Times, Scott defends his job and explains how he and other critics sometimes make mistakes in his new book, "Better Living Through Criticism."
03/01/2016 04:15:12 PM · #12
This generated an interesting conversation: Is being a Photographer synonymous with being an Artist?
03/01/2016 05:38:01 PM · #13
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

That's all fabulously interesting (I mean that sincerely) but at the same time it seems to be promoting the idea that "art" is about the twisted, the disturbing, the downright ugly, and I hate that. I love those images, don't get me wrong, they are incredibly strong. But can't we have the same passion wrapped up in beuaty?


I disagree. His particular oeuvre is dark, but the actual things he said in the video did not promote ugliness.
03/01/2016 05:42:18 PM · #14
Originally posted by luissales:

This generated an interesting conversation: Is being a Photographer synonymous with being an Artist?
wow, it's remarkable how many words some people take to say nothing
03/01/2016 06:23:34 PM · #15
I think the visual relationships point should speak easily to all: the matter of going beyond words is what makes imagery. Think of cartoons. You can explain them, but it is not the same. This is where we begin to dig, to feel, to expand.

03/01/2016 11:10:28 PM · #16
Only to those so sheltered from the evils of the depraved mind are images so dark attractive. We look because we've never had to experience such horror. Whereas, those who have, tend to look away and try to forget the reality it reminds them of.

I've never understood why those who mock and profane the good, the beautiful, and yes, the holy, are held in high esteem as "artists".

It seems to me that Paul was on to something when he said
...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable -- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy -- think about such things. - Paul
03/01/2016 11:17:53 PM · #17
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

That's all fabulously interesting (I mean that sincerely) but at the same time it seems to be promoting the idea that "art" is about the twisted, the disturbing, the downright ugly, and I hate that. I love those images, don't get me wrong, they are incredibly strong. But can't we have the same passion wrapped up in beuaty?

I disagree. His particular oeuvre is dark, but the actual things he said in the video did not promote ugliness.

Well, I wouldn't know about that, since I can't hear it. And I have no reason to believe he'd SAY anything against "beauty" either. My comment wasn't even directed to the man, either, though it might have seemed that way. I love the work, I really do. It's just that sometimes I get a tad depressed that currently it seems like you have to be grungy/depressing/sarcastic/eviscerating/choose your own bleak word here, in order to be taken seriously. Sort of like "all the stand-up comedians" seem to have filthy mouths and be obsessed with mnasty stuff these days, or who takes 'em seriously? I know I'm over-generalizing but I'll be turning 70 this year, and gee-whiz-by-golly in MY time we knew a little bit about civility (says the former flower child who rallied for free speech) :-)

If I quote Walt Whitman can I get off my own hook here?

“Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large -- I contain multitudes.”
03/01/2016 11:36:01 PM · #18
"wrapped in beauty" brother Bear? you do not contradict so much as betray.
03/02/2016 12:04:51 AM · #19
"how do you define anything?" He said it, when it comes to art I believe it.
03/02/2016 03:24:24 AM · #20
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

"how do you define anything?" He said it, when it comes to art I believe it.


To Define is difficult. Feelings, principles and beliefs are involved. Some constants may come into play.

But...

we have to talk to and interact with one another, as we [mostly] want to share our photo's, the artsy and the other ones.

So we try to frame it with our principles, compose it with our beliefs and colour it to represent our feelings.

The "it" being our definition of art/artist of course.

Then we post it in a appropriate manner, else we get DNMC comments or a disqualification ticket from the SC of your area of concern. We get a lot of good points from our family and cronies, and get blasted by our enemies, generally pleasing 5.2 out of 10 people with our definition.

Sometimes we hate our own definition after having to see it in the light of day week after week.

We can photoshop that same definition into an abstract B&W when the time comes, but few people will thank you for it.

One of the following is my definition:

- all people are artists, specially those younger than 3 years of age
- all photographers are artists, as all photographs are art
- only people declaring themselves to be artists are
- all artists are dead, as there have been no new art since 1941
- only painters are artists
- an artist has the need to put feelings into some substance and does so
- you can be called an artist after your first public exhibition of your work
- you can be called an artist after your first art-item sale
- you can only be called an artist until your first art-item sale
- an artist is someone that cannot keep a normal job
- an artist is a paying member of the closest art union

This is not a challenge to guess which one it is, it's just the ramblings of a man who has much more serious things to do, but he doesn't want to.

grammar

Message edited by author 2016-03-03 02:45:13.
03/02/2016 08:14:55 AM · #21
Originally posted by herfotoman:

the whole post

You gave me a smile to start my day. Thank you.
;-)
03/02/2016 11:28:16 AM · #22
I like the "normal job" definition! I'm an artist!
03/02/2016 12:47:27 PM · #23
Originally posted by herfotoman:

- all people are artists, specially those younger than 3 years of age


I like this one. Creativity isn't encouraged by the majority.
03/02/2016 02:41:08 PM · #24
Originally posted by herfotoman:

... it's just the ramblings of a man who has much more serious things do do, but he doesn't want to.


and where would art be if we did those much more serious things? homo ludens, I say.

peace to the peacemaker, herfotoman.
03/02/2016 11:00:43 PM · #25
I can't say what an artist is, but I know it when I meet one. ;-)

Seems to me that those who have a very distinct style, seem to think other styles are less artistic. Just my impression and echoes why can't art be beautiful as well as twists, or dark, or humorous, or any other thing.

As far as photography goes, I would hazard this flawed opinion. If your photograph comes from within, conceived and executed as you desired, it is art. If somebody sets a ball on a table and sell take a picture and you just shoot it with not thought or arrangement of your own, it isn't likely to be art.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 06:45:46 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 06:45:46 AM EDT.