Author | Thread |
|
04/01/2007 11:25:02 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl: the way i see it, if you can touch just one person, then you have accomplished something. The world of claiming yourself as an artist is typically a land of pompous egomania...at least from my experience in such worlds. This site is offended by a definition of fine art photography because everyone wants to be an artist. How can you get a proper assesment of your work from other insecure photographers all striving to impress? Perhaps the judging of something as art should indeed be left to the critics. Can an artist even really know if he has created fine art? I would imagine the creation of a piece is pure self expression in the moment of its creation. I have no idea what fine art photography is. I only know what i like. And with a site like this, what I like is generally over looked and under appreciated. Sometimes it hurts my soul when I have seen an image that I consider brilliant and inspiring, and then to see that it has been over looked by the masses. I do know that the imagery I see here does become redundant. The same concept becomes utilized over and over again. Its as bad as browsing wedding photography websites. You see the same thing over and over again. It is depressing when it seems that everything has been done and there is nothing new to discover...nothing new to do. And, it is boring to see the same concepts utilized on this site..over and over and over again. But that is just rude of me. This is a learning site. People of all levels of understanding are here to learn and grow in the realm of photography. I wish people would be more original and enter images that they shoot for themselves..not images shot for a challenge..shot for a score. I wish people would do this because I desperately want more inspiration. I want someone to prove to me that photography is not limited and there will always be new angles, new light, new expression in this medium to be discovered. I wish people would quit belly aching about scores and just shoot because they love it. Enter the odd and unusual in the hope that just one person might be touched...and then be happy with that when he/she is. This mass appeal for ribbon winning is just a sign of our human greed. We all want to be recognized, loved and appreciated on some level of our being. A dpc ribbon is not gonna do it. It is not food for the soul. This is off topic somehow..i will be quiet now... |
You're not the only one who feels that way but to be frank I don't get the part about the challenges. If it's inspiration you seek there are countless portfolios to browse through many of which contain great gems. I love it when I come across one. In fact when one starts to get popular by either the majority or the underground I start to lose interest in it.
As far as the challenges are concern, it is what it is. Popularity is what get awarded not originality or anything else. That very aspect clashes with art.
|
|
|
04/01/2007 11:26:05 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by yanko: As far as the challenges are concern, it is what it is. |
It is what it is, but it could be what it could be. |
|
|
04/01/2007 11:38:45 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by posthumous: Originally posted by yanko: As far as the challenges are concern, it is what it is. |
It is what it is, but it could be what it could be. |
How's that revolution coming? :P Seriously, how could it be any different? You could get every photographer to agree not to shoot the most DPC-ish looking images and guess what will happen? The photo that most closely resembles DPC-ish will win. It's an inevitability.
Speaking of which, that might make a nice challenge suggestion. :P
Message edited by author 2007-04-01 23:39:47.
|
|
|
04/01/2007 11:51:49 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl: Pedro...that is where we differ. You let mass opinion affect your own opinion of yourself and your work. If you really and truly appreciate something of your own creation..why would another not appreciating it affect you? Its fine to enter only for high scores. I am purpously entering redundancy at the moment. Its all an experiment. But you, pedro, of all people...have so much potential. Is it fair to say I would like to be inspired by such things? Why not share your intimacy by sharing those images that come from the truest of you?
I believe that if we are to evolve as photographers, we must evolve as humans. How are we to evolve if we limit ourselves to the boundary of limited mass appeal and "what works" for the moment? |
I think maybe you misunderstand me a little. Mass opinion doesn't affect me in the least when it comes to my own personal tastes. The things that inspire me hang on my walls for the world to see - and if the world doesn't agree, to hell with them. BUT, i'm a competitive person by nature, so I enter challenges with the thought that I may have a chance to win. As you mentioned above, it 'hurts your soul' when things that move you aren't appreciated by others - and in that we are a kindred spirit. I don't mind if people don't *like* what I like...I just don't want them voting on it :)
And Don...you do make a valid point. the day i create something that has a chance to change the way people see AND it happens to meet the challenge, I'll enter it :)
|
|
|
04/01/2007 11:59:41 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl: Pedro...that is where we differ. You let mass opinion affect your own opinion of yourself and your work. If you really and truly appreciate something of your own creation..why would another not appreciating it affect you? Its fine to enter only for high scores. I am purpously entering redundancy at the moment. Its all an experiment. But you, pedro, of all people...have so much potential. Is it fair to say I would like to be inspired by such things? Why not share your intimacy by sharing those images that come from the truest of you?
I believe that if we are to evolve as photographers, we must evolve as humans. How are we to evolve if we limit ourselves to the boundary of limited mass appeal and "what works" for the moment? |
Pardon me for "butting in", but this is something I think a lot about (even if it doesn't show).
I guess what I wonder about very frequently is why is it that people think that those images that come from the truest of a person have to be recognized as such by others? In other words, it sounds at times that for images to be true to a person they have to be of a certain kind, usually people pictures. Maybe I'm wrong, but it often seems to be the case. What if they're not? What if, to use just one example, a moody, lonely seascape at sunset is what comes truest to what a person holds dear, what a person loves and how a person sees the world? It seems that such an image would easily be discarded as cliche, and the person told to go make something creative, something true to herself. Why would those not also be food for the soul, just a different kind of soul? |
|
|
04/02/2007 12:02:03 AM · #106 |
I only meant that comment in the case of pedro personally...because i see a difference in the way he shoots for challenges and in the way he shoots for himself. He has some magic mojo that I would like to see more often. |
|
|
04/02/2007 12:19:35 AM · #107 |
come by for dinner tommorrow then - my innards are all over the walls :) |
|
|
04/02/2007 12:21:48 AM · #108 |
Categories of art - or rather art history, what has been created in recorded time-line, are interesting, one may find knowledge, religion, & inspiration in them, but also as in this thread a critical evaluation.
A lesson of post-modernism, regarding use of what has been brought & measured - style, school, technique, etc, (one may agree or disagree) is that they can all serve a art maker, are legitimate, useful, can be construed in present context to be creative.
Again a cryptic John Graham reference written 1926-1936, (he always keeps it simple) on the two primary elements of all art:
1. Subjective-creative criteria - Thought, conscious/unconscious and emotion. 2. The basis of all art media. The Objective criteria - Space.
|
|
|
04/02/2007 12:35:00 AM · #109 |
i enter challenges for myself. of course, my score suffers for it but i'm not concerned about that anymore. i feed off of comments and the hopes that i might move someone with my work. then again, i'm no artist, just a working photographer. i take whatever gig that comes along to pay the bills. every once in a long while, i create something that, in my limited brain, passes for art. |
|
|
04/02/2007 12:45:23 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by sher: i take whatever gig that comes along to pay the bills. every once in a long while, i create something that, in my limited brain, passes for art. |
I think thats the best that any of us can really strive for. I enter challenges because I am darn bored with my work, and taking photos only for work. I have no false hope that I am entering art. In fact, it is usually some strange act of rebellion against mass appeal...in my warped way of thinking and doing. My soul most likely suffers as an artists soul might...though its probably the product of crazy brain, hormonal imbalance, improper childhood etc. I am no artist. I am creative and I see things a bit different than the person standing next to me.
...i have always been rebellious. ;)
|
|
|
04/02/2007 12:54:54 AM · #111 |
---
Message edited by author 2007-04-02 01:02:15. |
|
|
04/02/2007 01:01:23 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl: Originally posted by sher: i take whatever gig that comes along to pay the bills. every once in a long while, i create something that, in my limited brain, passes for art. |
I think thats the best that any of us can really strive for. I enter challenges because I am darn bored with my work, and taking photos only for work. I have no false hope that I am entering art. In fact, it is usually some strange act of rebellion against mass appeal...in my warped way of thinking and doing. My soul most likely suffers as an artists soul might...though its probably the product of crazy brain, hormonal imbalance, improper childhood etc. I am no artist. I am creative and I see things a bit different than the person standing next to me.
...i have always been rebellious. ;) |
rebellion and i have always been friends. ;) |
|
|
04/03/2007 03:14:07 PM · #113 |
I decided to remove my comments from this thread.
Message edited by author 2007-04-04 09:17:15. |
|
|
04/03/2007 04:09:16 PM · #114 |
Returning to the original intent of this discussion about what is non-art...
I'm sad to see that my favorite genre of photography - landscapes - is completely unrepresented. so....
Is landscape photography art, or non-art?
And who decided that "kitsch" (whatever the hell that hotly debated thing is), "look what I came up with", photograph of a 'THING', and "commercial images" were the only consideration?
|
|
|
04/03/2007 05:37:06 PM · #115 |
There's a lot of people afraid to understand what is Art and what isn't Art, what is good Art and bad Art.
If we know where we want to go, it's a good idea to understand the roads to follow.
(I'll try to be simple and objective as much as It is possible in this subjective matter)
Art isn't a primary need like food, but you can take the food to a level of Art
(I think this example ilustrates the confusion about what is and what isn't Art)
- If you are preparing food to satisfing just a primary need, that is not Art.
- If you are preparing food to have some degree of aesthetic(*) value that is Art.
Food can have different levels of quality. The same applies to Art.
I'm sure there are some saying MacDonalds diet is the best tasty food. Those people are fat and with some helthy problems.
There are too, some "fat" minds, enjoying low quality Art. (You should expect to find in this group as many people as you can find in a MacDonalds).
What we like depends on our culture, education and sensibility. A good quality diet can be learned and educated.
The same happens with Art. A good taste for Art can be learned and educated.
A Fine Vintage(*), for example, you must learn the taste before you catch the subtlety of it. But once you get there you will ear the bells ringing.
The same happens with fine Art. You must learn and understand before you ear the bells.
But there is a big difference between A Fine Vintage and fine Art.
After you drink and enjoy a Fine Vintage you always can go back and eat an Hamburguer at a MacDonalds,
but with fine Art, once you get there you'll never accept to return back, just because art it isn't a primary need.
For sure, there is good food, bad food and fine food. The same goes for Art.
Everyone is free to eat what they like, specialy if they are happy with that.
There are and there'll be people saying they don't like fine Art, and there is no problem about that.
All they are losing is the bells ringing and one of the greatest pleasures that can be touch in this life.
You must pay attention to a lot of artists(?) calling Fine Art to their work. They are only using Markting techniques to deceive ignorant and ingenuous people.
We should know/learn what art means and understand very well the differences between good and bad art, as we do with good and bad food.
It's the only way for us to support each other in doing a better photographic artwork.
IMHO, Jorge
(Sorry my English)
PS:
- (*) Judgments of aesthetic value clearly rely on our ability to discriminate at a sensory level. Aesthetics examines what makes something beautiful, sublime, disgusting, fun, cute, silly, entertaining, pretentious, discordant, harmonious, boring, humorous, or tragic. A wine-drinker with an unrefined palate may miss much of the subtlety of a fine vintage.
- The level of quality in art is mesured by his aesthetic value.
- Fine Art is very expensive because it is rare and have unique characteristics with great aesthetic value.
- Fine Art is the highest level for any Artwork, usually called a Masterpiece.
|
|
|
04/03/2007 06:11:31 PM · #116 |
> De Sousa
Much traditional art appeals to our sense for aesthetics. Some art, however, cannot be appreciated in this way. It questions the validity to extend a convention beyond its usefulness and rebels against it with works that cannot be had (and appreciated) aesthetically.
There are also examples of contemporary works which have moved past rebellion and simply stand outside of an aesthetic sensibility in quite a non-reactionary pose.
Perhaps, someone with a little more time on their hands wouldn't mind posting one or two concrete examples...
Message edited by author 2007-04-03 18:12:01. |
|
|
04/03/2007 06:30:53 PM · #117 |
"The essence of all art is to have pleasure in giving pleasure."
- Dale Carnegie
Message edited by author 2007-04-03 18:31:12. |
|
|
04/03/2007 06:43:27 PM · #118 |
Art is an equation.
[(Philosophy + Medium) x Worldview] / Ego
The greater the ego, the less meaningful.
The greater the worldview, the more meaningful.
Don't forget that everything we say, read, write, output, sing, listen, draw or capture has a motivation behind it....a philosophy, morphed by a worldview, and delivered with some purpose.
|
|
|
04/03/2007 06:50:35 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by zeuszen: > De Sousa
Much traditional art appeals to our sense for aesthetics. Some art, however, cannot be appreciated in this way. It questions the validity to extend a convention beyond its usefulness and rebels against it with works that cannot be had (and appreciated) aesthetically.
There are also examples of contemporary works which have moved past rebellion and simply stand outside of an aesthetic sensibility in quite a non-reactionary pose.
Perhaps, someone with a little more time on their hands wouldn't mind posting one or two concrete examples... |
It's a good idea to keep this conversation at a simple level.
Of course you are right, but the discussion at that level doesn't help.
We are in a place where Kitsch is considered the best and it's rated high by the majorities.
We should understand first, why Kitsch is not enough for a photograph to be considered good Art.
(Note that I consider myself in the kitsch group and I hope to jump into the next level of Art. Kitsch is easy to reach, you just need to follow the basic rules and do not take much time from the viewer to let him understand your work)
Message edited by author 2007-04-03 18:56:48. |
|
|
04/03/2007 08:17:24 PM · #120 |
How you may feel about any one image or item, is coming from your own background and experiences. I believe that it is an individual thing, and why no one can agree on a definition or way to quantify art by quality.
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer: I don't think that this thread is going to resolve the issue.
How images are classified comes down to good salesmanship, timing, and which social class of people are exposed to the imges. |
|
|
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: 07/28/2025 06:14:09 AM EDT.