|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/24/2007 09:44:01 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I wonder, when you pick out a print that you might like to buy, if it's more like your own work, or not? To me, photography has its foundations in the personality of individual photographers--a cult of celebrity. There are no styles of photography, as in fine art, no cubism, pointalism, etc. There are no great eras in photography, like fin de siecle or art nouveau--all the landmarks in photography are based on the technology of the camera. |
pictorialism, f64 realism, Stieglitz and "The Place'
Plenty of photographic movements and genres. Perhaps it is tougher to see just now because we lack the perspective of history. Surrealism, Dadaism also heavily borrowed or used photography.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2007 09:45:47 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by yanko:
This is interesting. I'm probably in the middle here. I think we all restrict ourselves to some degree and it is in that restriction where creativity reveals itself. However, it can't be forced or arbitrary. It needs to have purpose. What I try to do is restrict myself to the moment where clarity is at it's highest. I've tried shooting ideas after I have written them down or shot from memory but they never come out the way I originally envisioned. When I am successful, that is when I have captured the essense of what I envisioned, it comes when the idea is still fresh in my mind. I have to be turning it over, inspecting it, experience it for the first time in order to truly capture it. The passage of time only corrupts this process and erodes the moment until it's lost. |
I'm increasingly liking picking and working on projects as motivation to develop style. I find I move much more quickly when I stop worrying about so many variables. Last week's project is a good case in point - one lens, one subject, one week.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2007 10:40:17 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I wonder, when you pick out a print that you might like to buy, if it's more like your own work, or not? To me, photography has its foundations in the personality of individual photographers--a cult of celebrity. There are no styles of photography, as in fine art, no cubism, pointalism, etc. There are no great eras in photography, like fin de siecle or art nouveau--all the landmarks in photography are based on the technology of the camera. |
pictorialism, f64 realism, Stieglitz and "The Place'
Plenty of photographic movements and genres. Perhaps it is tougher to see just now because we lack the perspective of history. Surrealism, Dadaism also heavily borrowed or used photography. |
Well, you know I keep researching the history of photography the best I can. I can find the history of the camera. I can find the history of great photographers. But the history of photography? I can find a history of the ongoing conflict between photography as art & photography as documentation (photo journalism). That's it. That's all I can find. If you have some online sources, I would be delighted to read them! Art has borrowed from photography, true, but has photography ever borrowed from art? Cinema has. But not photography. Please prove me wrong! |
|
|
|
10/24/2007 10:41:13 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm increasingly liking picking and working on projects as motivation to develop style. I find I move much more quickly when I stop worrying about so many variables. Last week's project is a good case in point - one lens, one subject, one week. |
That's why I like the side challenges/projects. Instead of having one week to figure out something to fit within parameters, you take daily exercises within the parameters, and work back and forth WITH, as opposed to against, other photographers, and in turn their styles and techniques become available to you to help develop your own.
I kind of consider them mini-photography courses and have learned immensely. They have taught me much about my own style and preferences.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2007 10:42:59 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I wonder, when you pick out a print that you might like to buy, if it's more like your own work, or not? To me, photography has its foundations in the personality of individual photographers--a cult of celebrity. There are no styles of photography, as in fine art, no cubism, pointalism, etc. There are no great eras in photography, like fin de siecle or art nouveau--all the landmarks in photography are based on the technology of the camera. |
pictorialism, f64 realism, Stieglitz and "The Place'
Plenty of photographic movements and genres. Perhaps it is tougher to see just now because we lack the perspective of history. Surrealism, Dadaism also heavily borrowed or used photography. |
Well, you know I keep researching the history of photography the best I can. I can find the history of the camera. I can find the history of great photographers. But the history of photography? I can find a history of the ongoing conflict between photography as art & photography as documentation (photo journalism). That's it. That's all I can find. If you have some online sources, I would be delighted to read them! Art has borrowed from photography, true, but has photography ever borrowed from art? Cinema has. But not photography. Please prove me wrong! |
Jeff Curto's Photo History lectures are an excellent starting point. I had a great time going through the entire semester. I learned a lot and found a lot more to learn.
//photohistory.jeffcurto.com/
He was also pretty good about answering questions from us non-paying students around the world, which was very impressive too.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 10:10:59 AM  |
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: 07/27/2025 10:10:59 AM EDT.
|
