Artsy - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

06/06/2007 06:45:10 PM · #1

Take your best shot at pure artistic expression. Make the viewer say "Wow, that's art!"

So often here on DPC, images that are beautiful get hammered because of "out of focus", "not enough depth of field", "not sharp enough", blah, blah, blah.

Here's your chance to put up a shot that embodies pure artistic expression and have it judged in context. You may find that it's harder than it looks to make something look "artsy".

There are a few threads on the subject of "artsy" or "artsy-fartsy", but nothing since Aug. 2005.

I know, I know. This is art.

bergiekat

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

06/06/2007 07:05:34 PM · #2

This self portrait was done awhile back (before the post office rate increase, lol). It's a little artsy and was totally fun doing! Is it truly artsy or just weird? Comments??

06/06/2007 07:19:14 PM · #3

Read the description for a little contextual knowledge.

I did a series of smoke shots accompanied with Japanese sayings... the series of 5 ca be seen on my website but you need to read japanese to really understand it all. This is me at my most "artistic" :)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/06/2007 07:25:17 PM · #4

Originally posted by bergiekat:

This self portrait was done awhile back (before the post office rate increase, lol). It's a little artsy and was totally fun doing! Is it truly artsy or just weird? Comments??

To be honest it does look a bit like you have played around with a few filters and had fun with it. However, that said, i dont think anyone can impose the decision "that is not art" on anyone else (except maybe that guy who stuck a piece of blu-tac on a wall for one of the turner prizes). All you can say is if you like or dislike it and why. I'm not too fond of the image as i am not really affected by it on a personal/emotional or intellectual level and that is how i judge "art".

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

06/06/2007 07:34:22 PM · #5

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 19:35:17.

06/06/2007 07:36:44 PM · #6

Originally posted by bergiekat:

This self portrait was done awhile back (before the post office rate increase, lol). It's a little artsy and was totally fun doing! Is it truly artsy or just weird? Comments??

I think it's great. If entered into a "Stamps" challenge, it would bomb, but you'd have a change in Artsy.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/06/2007 07:37:25 PM · #7

Originally posted by inshaala:

Simple, yet effective. Kind of zen like.

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

06/06/2007 07:40:21 PM · #8

Been playing with the idea lately, but not sold on the artsy look for me yet.

06/06/2007 07:44:09 PM · #9

dang it people, artsy is not a look. this is like saying let's have a "good" challenge where people post good pictures!

BAMartin

Apple iPhone 5

06/06/2007 07:48:03 PM · #10

This is my most artsy photo, it did poorly in a challenge, but caught the attention of one viewer enough that it spawned a forum thread of its own.

06/06/2007 07:48:46 PM · #11

Originally posted by posthumous:

dang it people, artsy is not a look. this is like saying let's have a "good" challenge where people post good pictures!

I think i failed to realise this was a challenge suggestion thinking it was just a thread to post up "artsy" photos and have a bit of commentary on them - but what i said about

bergiekat's image is prime example of how the challenge would basically be "what do people like". So yeah - i agree with what you are saying.

06/06/2007 07:54:21 PM · #12

Originally posted by inshaala:

Originally posted by posthumous:
dang it people, artsy is not a look. this is like saying let's have a "good" challenge where people post good pictures!

I think i failed to realise this was a challenge suggestion thinking it was just a thread to post up "artsy" photos and have a bit of commentary on them - but what i said about bergiekat's image is prime example of how the challenge would basically be "what do people like". So yeah - i agree with what you are saying.

the funny thing is that even though the challenge idea offends me, I would love the photos that were entered... sigh...

06/06/2007 07:54:45 PM · #13

Originally posted by posthumous:

dang it people, artsy is not a look. this is like saying let's have a "good" challenge where people post good pictures!

Ok, let's have a good challenge where people only post good pictures.

In a way, yes, it's like saying that. Good is as subjective as "artsy" is. We just had a religion challenge. Can you "define" that? Possibly, but there would be as many definitions as there are people on DPC.

If artsy is not a look, then what is artsy?

06/06/2007 07:55:32 PM · #14

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by inshaala:

Originally posted by posthumous:
dang it people, artsy is not a look. this is like saying let's have a "good" challenge where people post good pictures!

I think i failed to realise this was a challenge suggestion thinking it was just a thread to post up "artsy" photos and have a bit of commentary on them - but what i said about bergiekat's image is prime example of how the challenge would basically be "what do people like". So yeah - i agree with what you are saying.

the funny thing is that even though the challenge idea offends me, I would love the photos that were entered... sigh...

Hehe - yeah, although really the "artsy" challenge should be partly swallowed by the free studies... that is where to go for "good" image viewing :)

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 19:56:02.

Sony DT 18–55mm f/3.5–5.6 SAM AF

06/06/2007 07:59:07 PM · #15

Originally posted by shanksware:

If artsy is not a look, then what is artsy?

To be fairly blunt and provocative (as well as a bit hypocritical) imo it is being fairly pretentious and up yourself about what you are "creating". Now inherently in that is personal tastes - hence me not liking the

bergiekat's image and you saying it was great. So you already have a problem on your hands in defining "artsy" - basically at it's core i think it is "whatever you want to do"... i heard some guy (might be a myth as i havent seen a link yet) put 12 goldfish in 12 blenders filled with water... by the end of the 1st week of display 5 were blended due to curious gallery goers wondering if the blenders were plugged in. That is art - although some might disagree.

Les_Feck

Sony SLT-A58

06/06/2007 08:04:07 PM · #16

"Artsy", I my opinion, as it relates to photography, is anything that does not look like a photograph - at least at first glance.

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

06/06/2007 08:23:13 PM · #17

Originally posted by posthumous:

well, you'd sure like it better than the 'technicals' challenge!

06/06/2007 08:27:11 PM · #18

Just for the record, I don't think I can define artsy.

It's kind of like pornography. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

I just thought it would be fun to have a challenge where everyone could put up shots that they considered to be art, without the negative connotations associated with your typical challenge.

Doesn't it get a little old getting comments about sharpening when you intentionally didn't sharpen for effect?

How about shooting "soft" to intentionally get a dream like quality to the shot. Guaranteed to get hammered and get loads of "advice" about using a higher f-stop to get a deeper DOF.

Oh, and intentionally de-saturating slightly, to get a softer, old-timey affect, and getting boat loads of comments about bumping the saturation using an HSL adjustment layer.

I don't know, maybe the idea sucks.

You may now ignore this thread.

Sony FE 3.5-5.6/28-70 mm OSS

06/06/2007 08:36:37 PM · #19

How about instead of trying to define artsy and make a contest out of the word have it as "i did it because i wanted" and the description of - Do whatever you want to create the feel you want in your photo - technicals are all out of the window (comment on such and get a 1 week ban ;))

I think a lot of dnmc problems on this site come from peoples own narrow interpretations of a theme (or those few entries which have no connection whatesoever) - thus trying to attach a one word definition of the theme is counterproductive in this particular case as you are trying to give a broad "art" sense to it. no?

JunieMoon

Sony Alpha a7 II

06/06/2007 09:04:03 PM · #20

Originally posted by shanksware:

One of the problems with intentionally doing those things is that as a viewer we don't have a clue. Sometimes I think that it would be okay to also post the processing of the image, without knowing who did it. In that way, when we come across an image that is "out of the box" we can read the pp and decide if the image really worked at what the photographer was trying to do. Not sure if it would really make a difference scoring wise, but at least we as a voter would have a starting point to base our score on.

Les_Feck

Sony SLT-A58

Sony DT 18–55mm f/3.5–5.6 SAM AF

06/06/2007 09:10:58 PM · #21

I took a picture. It is a great picture. Screw you if you don't "get" it.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/06/2007 11:54:31 PM · #22

Every challenge should be "artsy." Artsy just means taking a picture that is actually worth looking at just for the sake of looking at it. That is all.

I often hear this concern over whether blur or some other technique may or may not be intentional. Leroy started a whole thread about it. Don't worry about intent. Just look at the picture and like it or don't like it. I'm thinking of starting a Looking 101 thread because I think most people at DPC don't know how to do that. They're too busy looking for technical considerations that don't exist.

Focus, for example, is a technique in which you give various parts of the photo a certain amount of focus. Having one thing in extremely sharp focus is not a "good technical." Being able to see all the details of your photo is not a "good technical." A good technical is using a technique to create something worth looking at. A "technical" that isn't achieving any purpose is not a good technical.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

06/07/2007 12:02:09 AM · #23

Originally posted by posthumous:

Focus, for example, is a technique in which you give various parts of the photo a certain amount of focus. Having one thing in extremely sharp focus is not a "good technical." Being able to see all the details of your photo is not a "good technical." A good technical is using a technique to create something worth looking at. A "technical" that isn't achieving any purpose is not a good technical.

Yes and no on the technical thing - if someone has just come into photography and is learning the basics, learning what the technical aspects are and how to control them (and if so desired, abuse them) is a worthwhile purpose. For instance, I still shoot damn near everything at f/6.3 for no apparent reason whatsoever, where learning how to select an appropriate (not saying 6.3 isn't appropriate) aperture for a given situation might expand the possibilities and lead to more interesting and viewable results.