| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/01/2006 06:44:03 PM · #26 |
I suppose taste is a personal choice. One observation I have made regarding other peoples photography are the variables involved. The photographers who really stand out for me (even on this site) are the ones who leave nothing to chance. The shot is well executed, exposed, framed etc. The post processing is carefully and tastefully done. The printing/framing is done correctly.Only then is the shot put up for general viewing. This all may sound basic - but how many times have we rushed to get something submitted (even for an exhibition) that we are not a 100% happy with - God knows I done that more times than I like to admit.
You mentioned that the tones etc weren't even very good - maybe it's a result of where he got them printed. Maybe he got them printed cheaply without any care to how well they would be done.
Also - there are thousands of photographers out there.From people who have taken a few shots and think they are the next Ansal Adams to people who have flogged away for years. Some of these are very pushy - get their stuff displayed everywhere without any real concept of whether it is any good or not. While some of us are still playing and replaying with that one shot we think is great they have gotten dozens of not so great shots out there. Pure arse really.
The bottom line thou - is personal choice.
I go to a lot of Art exhibitions (not photograhy). Some I like, some I just don't get at all. I may understand what they are trying to say but the emotion, technical expertise just doesn't do it for me. I remember going to an opening a while back - the artist was present. I liked the stuff but not to the point of "brilliant". The artist asked for my thoughts. I couln't really think of anything to say so I said "nice". Well - this was the worst thing I could have said. "Nice" !! She really ripped into me - she wanted an emotion respond - love it or hate it. But unfortunately it didn't engage me in that way.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2006 06:47:47 PM · #27 |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 06:49:13 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Or, on the other hand, maybe corporate art buyers are looking for non-distinct art that just can sit there on the wall and not really draw to much attention to itself while providing a theme. Maybe they were just looking for set with an airplane theme near the Big Fatcat conference room with electronically smoked windows. Who knows, I don't buy art, I try to make it though. |
As a nobody who has photos hanging in government offices I would imagine it is patronage. The walls are bare, somebody decides there's some money in the budget to spruce up the place. They can't justify the cost of the gallery route but they can spread the wealth to family, friends, and acquaintances.
EDIT: Mine are in focus though. :)
Message edited by author 2006-12-01 18:50:21. |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 08:05:45 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RKT:
I wonder how Stieglitz would score here...I'm thinking not very well... |
I don't think very well either. |
If it's "processed" to DPC specs, yes I think it could do well but not in it's present form. |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 09:36:39 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by yanko:
If it's "processed" to DPC specs, yes I think it could do well but not in it's present form. |
and I don't quite know which way that's a sadder commentary ;)
|
|
|
|
12/01/2006 09:44:01 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Or, on the other hand, maybe corporate art buyers are looking for non-distinct art that just can sit there on the wall and not really draw to much attention to itself while providing a theme. Maybe they were just looking for set with an airplane theme near the Big Fatcat conference room with electronically smoked windows. Who knows, I don't buy art, I try to make it though. |
As a nobody who has photos hanging in government offices I would imagine it is patronage. The walls are bare, somebody decides there's some money in the budget to spruce up the place. They can't justify the cost of the gallery route but they can spread the wealth to family, friends, and acquaintances.
EDIT: Mine are in focus though. :) |
Our local Fine Arts Council has a program that allows artists to rotate their works between a number of businesses on a three month basis. You have to show them samples of your work to be accepted but no one approves the displays. Businesses get multiple free displays and participate in the local arts and the nobodies get an opportunity to display their work. |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 09:50:12 PM · #32 |
Whats sad is the reverse snobbery.
Meaning, the descriptions of various art and photography that people see on exhibit but they can't understand why its there so it must be because someone got taken, knows somebody, its culture snobs, or some other explanation.
What happened to people just letting something exist and if the art, photo or whatever mystifies them so much then expand your mind.
I think God and most religion is an absolute farce, fairytales to keep ignorant people in line and to impose mans will. However, I stop short of proclaiming to be an atheist because I am smart enough to know I don't know all the mysteries of the universe. I do have some faith there may be something in the great void yet to be revealed.
Same for art. What was in the persons mind, their soul if you will, when they created their work. As an artist, some of my most intimate thoughts are in some of my most simplistic pieces and may not necessarily be masterpieces.
:-/ |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 10:32:11 PM · #33 |
I would go with a little mix of all 3, depending upon what I was looking at.
Lets take art (painting/drawing/sculture/installation art) as an example. I used to think that a lot of art was pure crap. But my teenage daughter has become a quite good fine artist. (She has an local, prestigious art college that is familiar with her work sending her mail every week reminding her to apply for admission. She hasn't even applied and the have already awarded her a $3,000/year scholarship, but I digress). She really wanted to go, so we visited The Museum of Modern Art in NYC last year. Seeing some of this stuff in real life gave me a greater appreciation for it. I used to think Jackson Pollack's art was just nothing but paint slatter. Well, to a degree, it is. But seeing it up close in real life, it's more than that. It's huge and multi-layered and has more than paint (including bottle caps and cigarette butts). I really like it now. Same with Picasso. Now let me tell you, there is still pure crap out there. The plain white canvas that allegedly took two years to do? CRAP. The pile of lightbuld laying in the corner? CRAP. But I guess it must be art to someone, or they are just really good salesmen, because it is in one of the top museums in the world.
I think my point is, you really need to study it. Look hard. Try to figure out what went in to it. Think "this might not look good on my walls, but in what situation would it look good on someone else's wall?" I imaging that there is someplace that the giant plain white canvas would look nice. Just not in my house. It's all a matter of taste.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2006 10:39:39 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by larryslights:
Think "this might not look good on my walls, but in what situation would it look good on someone else's wall?" I imaging that there is someplace that the giant plain white canvas would look nice. Just not in my house. It's all a matter of taste. |
I hope people think more of art than if it would make good decoration in their home or office.
I am not saying that art should not or could not be good interior decoration, just I hope that is not the only criteria people use to evaluate art.
Frankly, I find art in everything. I am a big believer in industrial art as the major driving force in modern culture. Look at the I-Pod. What design has more influence on modern thought and culture? Architecture, landscape, fashipn.. really..anything that human thought and creativity goes into.
I'm not saying a person has to like it..far from it. I would just hope that when you see something and you have any pretense of being a patron of art of any kind ...give it a chance to affect you. |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 10:56:57 PM · #35 |
Interesting discussion. It's all a matter of preference, isn't it.
Some people like Thomas Kincade (self-described "Painter of Light"), some people like little leprechauns perched under toadstools, others enjoy stark Dali works. Others like photographs described (apparently) as being formless and out of focus. My point being that people have many different thoughts on what they want to look at.
Personally, if I "like" something, I stand there appreciating it. if I don't "like" it, I don't sweat it, I just keep moving. Someone likes it, or it wouldn't be hanging in a public space.
This is not my problem.
I suppose if it was in my neighborhood, I might take note of the address, and ask how to be considered for an exhibit when the space becomes available. |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 11:55:40 PM · #36 |
all three of OP's statements start off claiming 'photographer'
but what you are looking at is 'ART'
not that they don't coexist but looking at the long history of photographic 'art' - dmn near anything can be considered art including non DPC'esk pictures
don't get trapped thinking that DPC is the a pinnacle of photography
- it caterers to photographers & people who like pretty pictures NOT artists -
are you an artist first ? or a photographer ?
DPC is fun but is only part of the journey ;)
|
|
|
|
12/02/2006 12:38:07 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by ralph:
- it caterers to photographers & people who like pretty pictures NOT artists -
are you an artist first ? or a photographer ?
|
Is it not possible to be both? Why does one have to be either an artist or a photographer first?
Also, is it not possible for artist to also like pretty pictures? Is "pretty", or maybe "pretty picture", used almost as a sort of put-down?
|
|
|
|
12/02/2006 12:49:42 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Interesting discussion. It's all a matter of preference, isn't it.
Some people like Thomas Kincade (self-described "Painter of Light"), some people like little leprechauns perched under toadstools, others enjoy stark Dali works. Others like photographs described (apparently) as being formless and out of focus. My point being that people have many different thoughts on what they want to look at.
Personally, if I "like" something, I stand there appreciating it. if I don't "like" it, I don't sweat it, I just keep moving. Someone likes it, or it wouldn't be hanging in a public space.
This is not my problem.
I suppose if it was in my neighborhood, I might take note of the address, and ask how to be considered for an exhibit when the space becomes available. |
I completely agree. It's the same here at DPC. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of photos here that are faved by only one person. That doesn't mean the photo is bad, it just means that one person found some kind of connection with that photo. Art isn't always about the "WOW" factor. Subtle, emotion driven art is often not technically perfect nor does it always adhere to the so-called "rules" of photography.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2006 01:08:36 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Is it not possible to be both? Why does one have to be either an artist or a photographer first?
Also, is it not possible for artist to also like pretty pictures? Is "pretty", or maybe "pretty picture", used almost as a sort of put-down? |
Of course it is. What we see is that 'fine art' is much more subjective though. I think the name inherently implies that it has a much more narrow audience.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2006 02:32:52 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I hope people think more of Art than if it would make good decoration in their home or office. |
Ditto. ;-)
I would agree with something someone said below/above about some are really good at the craft and some are really good at marketing it and rarely are both traits inherent in the same person. This is true of any craft. I have seen a lot of crappy software developed by people who made millions off it because of a key event, contact or client or because they were simply audacious and persistent. Those who are really good at their art or craft usually have too much self-doubt and/or are too critical of their own work to feel it is "good enough" to be exhibited, purchased for millions, etc.
Be dismayed if you want, but the saying "It's not what you know, but who you know" has much truth to it. In the world of painting, how many masterpieces do you think have never been seen? In the commercial world, how many brilliant ideas never got off the ground simply because the inventor/builder/designer had no clue how to market the idea - or wanted to wait until it was perfect? Conversely, how many crappy products, photos, McBurgers, etc. are bringing in millions for those who successfully marketed them?
As we have seen from many examples from members of this site, sometimes all it takes is a little effort, a little boldness and a little luck to have others staring at your photos on the wall of the hotel lobby saying "I don't get it!" :) |
|
|
|
12/02/2006 03:38:17 AM · #41 |
Did you ask someone in the hotel about photo exhibitions ?
In case they usually have exhibitions , they maybe could be interested in your portfolio.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2006 05:57:24 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Mambe:
Did you ask someone in the hotel about photo exhibitions ?
In case they usually have exhibitions , they maybe could be interested in your portfolio. |
Then some random photographer could walk by and ask them why is this up in this hotel? skies aren't that color! :P. To be honest they would say the same about mine, LOL.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2006 10:46:28 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
I walk by a 12 picture set from some no-name photog that took a bunch of pics out the window of his plane.
My impression: the "arts" director for Sprint knows him or a friend of a friend or whatever. My Google skills are good enough that I can reasonably identify this person as basically a nobody just like me. Most of them aren't even really in focus.
Given that, someone got taken.
Or, on the other hand, maybe corporate art buyers are looking for non-distinct art that just can sit there on the wall and not really draw to much attention to itself while providing a theme. Maybe they were just looking for set with an airplane theme near the Big Fatcat conference room with electronically smoked windows. Who knows, I don't buy art, I try to make it though. |
Maybe it was the art director's photographs or maybe even his fatcat boss' work! Or maybe it's $1 microstock! Though I would imagine more sophistication with their formidable marketing budget. |
|
|
|
12/04/2006 10:49:55 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by lynnesite:
Or maybe it's $1 microstock! |
Let's hope not. That's not part of the use agreement for this type of stock photography.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2006 11:03:17 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
Hehe. I think someone who knows more than me put them there? Then I go buy a Maxim for "real" art. |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 06:26:02 PM EDT.
