| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/16/2009 03:54:41 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Intelli:
Anything that has some significance, like I said..if he had a rocket launcher, then that would most likely make him a soldier.. and there would be some storyline. There is a guy riding a bike, he is completely anonymous you can't make out any features.. therefore he is nothing but a guy on a bike. Who cares? Who cares about a water drop? or a flower? or edges of paper..fruit in a basket. IMO that's all silly stuff.. they would be great subjects to learn with, learning about lighting, composition..etc, then use that with a subject that matters.. a moment in history, a photo that has some background..a story, a photo that tells u something. Portraits even have their relevence, they capture their subject in time for everyone to remember forever. There just simply is no point to this photograph. It doesn't even document any significant architechture of his time period. It's like taking a photo of a fruit basket..if you like that stuff, then great. =) |
I completely agree with you except for one point - if he has a rocket launcher instead of a bicycle. There is still no storyline if he is standing next to the stairs, faceless and blurry... Context is great, just don't give any where none exists... |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:55:18 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Being able to appreciate something more because of the history of another work is one thing. Ridiculing people about their opinion on works they don't enjoy today because they don't understand who it's from (regardless if that person is a highly regarded 'genius' or not) is completely different. I don't care if you're BumbleButt Tony doing stick figures on cave walls, or Vincent Van freaking Gogh, if someone doesn't like your work, they don't like it, and their opinion is as valid as anyone else's. The only reason people decide that it isn't is because they have conned themselves into believing that their opinion has more weight due to whatever 'education' they have received.
Another thing that amuses me is people that use their OWN creations to strengthen an argument. I always see it as, "I'm right because my artwork proves it." huh? lol.
Anyway, I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and whatever. I'm a black sheep. Whatever.
I have a black velvet painting of a mexican smoking a cigarette to buy. |
The opinion might be as valid (as you speak), though opinions are never validated (or validatible if that is even a word, because opinions are not truth statements) but it doesn't carry as much weight or value when one is less than educated in the subject at hand. For example, Bumblebutt Tony might have an opinion on how to build a race car, but I will take the opinion of a certified race car mechanic over his any day. Experience and education always give weight to opinion - deny it if you like, but Art and Photography, are no different from building race cars in that respect. |
For the record, any argument that attempts to compare the objective with the subjective is dismissible for me. You build a race car, and it works, or it doesn't. If it doesn't run, you've screwed up. Training can help you make that care run.
You paint a picture (or take a photo) and people both like it, and don't like it. Whether or not more people like it than not like it will always depend on context. I suppose I have to concede that you can 'learn' to do something that will be more enjoyed by certain populations of people, but never by everyone, and you can't objectively say "This works". Exception being in a contest. something might 'work' for that contest, but it's definitely not going to win every contest its in.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:57:45 PM · #153 |
| Why a featureless guy on a bike without a rocket launcher? Because 99.9% of us don't have rocket launchers. We're just everyday people doing everyday things, and there's a wonderful beauty in that all its own. I don't know that it MUST be of historic significance - but it can be. The everyday makes up the bulk of history. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:59:08 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Intelli:
Anything that has some significance, like I said..if he had a rocket launcher, then that would most likely make him a soldier.. and there would be some storyline. There is a guy riding a bike, he is completely anonymous you can't make out any features.. therefore he is nothing but a guy on a bike. Who cares? Who cares about a water drop? or a flower? or edges of paper..fruit in a basket. IMO that's all silly stuff.. they would be great subjects to learn with, learning about lighting, composition..etc, then use that with a subject that matters.. a moment in history, a photo that has some background..a story, a photo that tells u something. Portraits even have their relevence, they capture their subject in time for everyone to remember forever. There just simply is no point to this photograph. It doesn't even document any significant architechture of his time period. It's like taking a photo of a fruit basket..if you like that stuff, then great. =) |
I completely agree with you except for one point - if he has a rocket launcher instead of a bicycle. There is still no storyline if he is standing next to the stairs, faceless and blurry... Context is great, just don't give any where none exists... |
I was kinda picturing him riding the bike with a rocket launcher =) In a big hurry around the corner to save the town! |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:59:39 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by Intelli:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Intelli:
I agree.. and I appreciate his work, and his composition.. in his era. But the photo orginally posted.. it just has the feel of an abstract, well composed with nice lighting, with a really plain subject. I mean.. what's the point of shooting a guy on a bike, rounding a corner in the street. Maybe if he had an anti-tank rocket launcher on his shoulder then I might say the photo is perfect. =) |
Okay, if not a guy on a bike and a stairwell, what then? A sunset on the ocean? A pretty girl smiling? A flower against a black or white backdrop? A water drop? A splash? What makes them better subjects for photography? The fact that they 'seem' more difficult to capture? The fact that they were created digitally? The fact that they are recently taken? I'm not sure where you are going with this? What is the point of capturing any image? |
...There is a guy riding a bike, he is completely anonymous you can't make out any features.. therefore he is nothing but a guy on a bike. Who cares?.f.. they would be great subjects...a subject that matters....Portraits...capture their subject...There just simply is no point to this photograph.... |
Perhaps, if you thought of a photograph as an object, a thing in its own right, its supposed subject(s) would permit a less obstructed view? |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 04:01:42 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm not sure what that would accomplish. By showing just the photo without mentioning its author you get more honest reactions as was the case here. It seems like you're saying it's only a good photo because HCB shot it and therefore people needed to be aware of that. I don't know of anybody here that is claiming that. The photo can stand on its own merits with or without HCB as its author. |
Ah no sorry Richard I don't think I made myself very clear there.
What I actually meant was there seems to be some people bemoaning those that gave an honest opinion in the flickr group because they have no right to do that (or to point out the flaws they saw in it) because they were unaware that it was an HCB, now if they knew from the outset that it was an HCB then they may not have offered those critiques or may simply have said "Not to my taste" rather than offering CC on this "Mr Joe Publics" image. However had they known it was HCB and still offered ways to improve the image then this debate would have more weight - Just IMO ofcourse. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 04:10:52 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Perhaps, if you thought of a photograph as an object, a thing in its own right, its supposed subject(s) would permit a less obstructed view? |
That's waaay too deep lol. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 04:17:28 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm not sure what that would accomplish. By showing just the photo without mentioning its author you get more honest reactions as was the case here. It seems like you're saying it's only a good photo because HCB shot it and therefore people needed to be aware of that. I don't know of anybody here that is claiming that. The photo can stand on its own merits with or without HCB as its author. |
Ah no sorry Richard I don't think I made myself very clear there.
What I actually meant was there seems to be some people bemoaning those that gave an honest opinion in the flickr group because they have no right to do that (or to point out the flaws they saw in it) because they were unaware that it was an HCB, now if they knew from the outset that it was an HCB then they may not have offered those critiques or may simply have said "Not to my taste" rather than offering CC on this "Mr Joe Publics" image. However had they known it was HCB and still offered ways to improve the image then this debate would have more weight - Just IMO ofcourse. |
to be frank, i am not against liking or disliking something.
it is the part where people picking up mistakes and telling how to improve it that bothered me.
As viewer you have right to like or dislike but as an artist i have right to what i give you.
viewer is not supposed to make art for artist.
That flickr thread reflects general priorities of today for example - ultra sharpness of picture, low noise at high iso, equipment used etc etc.
people were least worried about composition. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 04:21:28 PM · #159 |
| Yes I understand where you are coming from Zxaar but those people were misled in to thinking that the image was from an unknown photographer and that is my point really, had they known from the outset that it was Henri's work and still made the same critics and ways of improvement then I believe you have an arguement, however as it is I think your arguement should be with the person who posted the image under the guise of entertainment, it's quite obvious he had two accounts and was very quick to berate and belittle anyone who dared to offer a "delete" opinion. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 04:28:41 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
For the record, any argument that attempts to compare the objective with the subjective is dismissible for me. You build a race car, and it works, or it doesn't. If it doesn't run, you've screwed up. Training can help you make that care run.
You paint a picture (or take a photo) and people both like it, and don't like it. Whether or not more people like it than not like it will always depend on context. I suppose I have to concede that you can 'learn' to do something that will be more enjoyed by certain populations of people, but never by everyone, and you can't objectively say "This works". Exception being in a contest. something might 'work' for that contest, but it's definitely not going to win every contest its in. |
Actually, I stated that the OPINION (a subjective thing) on how to build a better race car, carries more weight from someone who knows what they are talking about (A race car mechanic) than someone who doesn't (Tony). It has nothing to do with liking or not liking. I am comparing apples to apples, opinion to opinion. I never said anything about actually building a race car or painting a picture.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2009 04:34:06 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Okay, if not a guy on a bike and a stairwell, what then? A sunset on the ocean? A pretty girl smiling? A flower against a black or white backdrop? A water drop? A splash? What makes them better subjects for photography? The fact that they 'seem' more difficult to capture? The fact that they were created digitally? The fact that they are recently taken? I'm not sure where you are going with this? What is the point of capturing any image? |
Dangit. I answered this one above, but I think it got missed in the flury of posts. :) I'll post again:
I've always thought about it like this. On one hand, photography as an artform can be used to capture the interaction of light, shape, and texture much like a painting. Portrait artists and Landscape artists look to this for their inspiration. Can we get that tree to perfectly frame the haystack in the background? Can we capture the mysterious beauty of the human face? However, photography can also be used to capture a moment in time. The ephemera of life. Street photographers like HCB looked to this for their inspiration. Because this second aspect is one of split-second timing, compositional details that consume the landscape artist or the portrait photog simply cannot be controlled beyond a rudimentary level. However, they are less important.
I think many people who pick up a camera for the first time think with the idea of making "art" gravitate to the compositional aspect (light/shape/texture). Because of this they often respond to a Street Photog picture with this mindset.
Once in a while you find a picture that excels at both composition and capturing that ephemeral moment. Usually one of the two was by accident which is why these pictures are so rare (the landscape with the eagle swooping down to catch a fish or the moment of life which happened to take place in a spot that offers exceptional composition). The landscape photog looks to composition but happens to be in the right place at the right time to capture "the moment". The street photog looks to capture the moment but happens to do it in a wonderful light. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 04:34:30 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
...
viewer is not supposed to make art for artist.
... |
I love this. Viewer is supposed to see. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 04:35:01 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
but those people were misled in to thinking that the image was from an unknown photographer and that is my point really, had they known from the outset that it was Henri's work and still made the same critics and ways of improvement then I believe you have an arguement, |
yepp this really is crux of this issue.
But still today's photographers (i am not sure about past ones though) give way too much importance to technicals.
which is entirely not wrong also, because good technicals reflect learning.
my gripe with dpc for example always been that even a repeatitive subject or a mundane subject could win ribbon if shot is technically very very good. Because when voters here see good technicals, they have tendency to give at least 6 and many just shower 10s because they felt it is much better than their standards (post processing).
where as a very good composition with subject matter might fail to reach heights it deserves because many people would say - great subject but a corner in you picture is out or focus. 5 for effort.
juding on technicals is not wrong, but sometimes its all about composition. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 04:43:46 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
For the record, any argument that attempts to compare the objective with the subjective is dismissible for me. You build a race car, and it works, or it doesn't. If it doesn't run, you've screwed up. Training can help you make that care run.
You paint a picture (or take a photo) and people both like it, and don't like it. Whether or not more people like it than not like it will always depend on context. I suppose I have to concede that you can 'learn' to do something that will be more enjoyed by certain populations of people, but never by everyone, and you can't objectively say "This works". Exception being in a contest. something might 'work' for that contest, but it's definitely not going to win every contest its in. |
Actually, I stated that the OPINION (a subjective thing) on how to build a better race car, carries more weight from someone who knows what they are talking about (A race car mechanic) than someone who doesn't (Tony). It has nothing to do with liking or not liking. I am comparing apples to apples, opinion to opinion. I never said anything about actually building a race car or painting a picture. |
Uh, that's semantic double-speak that doesn't hold up. An opinion on something objective is still subject to that objectivity. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 04:45:06 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
my gripe with dpc for example always been that even a repeatitive subject or a mundane subject could win ribbon if shot is technically very very good. Because when voters here see good technicals, they have tendency to give at least 6 and many just shower 10s because they felt it is much better than their standards (post processing).
where as a very good composition with subject matter might fail to reach heights it deserves because many people would say - great subject but a corner in you picture is out or focus. 5 for effort.
juding on technicals is not wrong, but sometimes its all about composition. |
Oh god I couldn't agree more, I think some very good work gets missed by the voters (fortunately the OOBIES often pick them up) and as a community I feel we are pushing those wanting to score well in a very linear direction, things that are different from the "accepted" rarely score well, which is why I feel the front page often looks familiar.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2009 05:12:34 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Uh, that's semantic double-speak that doesn't hold up. An opinion on something objective is still subject to that objectivity. |
So your opinion is that there is nothing objective in someone's opinion about art? Or more specifically, a photograph? |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 05:14:22 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm not sure what that would accomplish. By showing just the photo without mentioning its author you get more honest reactions as was the case here. It seems like you're saying it's only a good photo because HCB shot it and therefore people needed to be aware of that. I don't know of anybody here that is claiming that. The photo can stand on its own merits with or without HCB as its author. |
Ah no sorry Richard I don't think I made myself very clear there.
What I actually meant was there seems to be some people bemoaning those that gave an honest opinion in the flickr group because they have no right to do that (or to point out the flaws they saw in it) because they were unaware that it was an HCB, now if they knew from the outset that it was an HCB then they may not have offered those critiques or may simply have said "Not to my taste" rather than offering CC on this "Mr Joe Publics" image. However had they known it was HCB and still offered ways to improve the image then this debate would have more weight - Just IMO ofcourse. |
I see now, but don't you think that would have just polarized the debate even more? There's already enough animosity toward the elite that is fueling some of these responses as it is. At least the way it was conducted we got some honest comments out of people unaware of his work and therefore got some insight into how people see through virgin eyes.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2009 05:14:46 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
... something objective is still subject to that objectivity. |
What if I object to your subjectivity? ;-) |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 05:14:52 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think many people who pick up a camera for the first time think with the idea of making "art" gravitate to the compositional aspect (light/shape/texture). Because of this they often respond to a Street Photog picture with this mindset.
|
I understand everything except for how this fits in. Maybe I'm just thinking backwards...people who pick up a camera for the first time respond to a street photog with what mindset? |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 05:19:19 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
... something objective is still subject to that objectivity. |
What if I object to your subjectivity? ;-) |
I'll subject you to blunt object-ivity ;D
Message edited by author 2009-06-16 17:19:28. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 05:20:19 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I see now, but don't you think that would have just polarized the debate even more? There's already enough animosity toward the elite that is fueling some of these responses as it is. At least the way it was conducted we got some honest comments out of people unaware of his work and therefore got some insight into how people see through virgin eyes. |
I agree that had the author of the work been known then the opposites would probably have been pushed even further apart, I guess my take on it is you should not ask to see through the eyes of a Virgin and then scold them because of their response (that was not directed at you - or anyone else for that matter). |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 05:20:28 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think many people who pick up a camera for the first time think with the idea of making "art" gravitate to the compositional aspect (light/shape/texture). Because of this they often respond to a Street Photog picture with this mindset.
|
I understand everything except for how this fits in. Maybe I'm just thinking backwards...people who pick up a camera for the first time respond to a street photog with what mindset? |
Perhaps a mindset that all pictures should meet all the "rules" of composition, lighting, focus, etc. Where the importance of the "subject" is subsumed by an evaluation of the "technicals" of the image. It also has to do with where people "draw the line" on a continuum from forensic documentation to abstract ("art for art's sake"?) ... and where it becomes "Art" with a capital A> |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 05:20:38 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Uh, that's semantic double-speak that doesn't hold up. An opinion on something objective is still subject to that objectivity. |
So your opinion is that there is nothing objective in someone's opinion about art? Or more specifically, a photograph? |
That is my opinion, yes. The only objectivity are the subjective rules that people have decided to agree upon over time. However, using them or not using them doesn't have the DEFINITIVE result that say, making an engine run has. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 05:21:07 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think many people who pick up a camera for the first time think with the idea of making "art" gravitate to the compositional aspect (light/shape/texture). Because of this they often respond to a Street Photog picture with this mindset.
|
I understand everything except for how this fits in. Maybe I'm just thinking backwards...people who pick up a camera for the first time respond to a street photog with what mindset? |
When asked "what do you think about this picture?" I think the typical person who has recently picked up a camera to make "art" responds by looking at composition of light/shape/texture rather than what street photography is really about (ephemeral moments). To the street photog this is moronic, but it is merely two people comminicating with a different medium in mind.
They may, therefore, look at Steve's picture:
and rather than noting the capture of the moment may just reply "haha, look, the one way sign is growing right out of his head!" To the landscape/portrait photographer who creates and controls his composition as much as possible, that would be a big error, but in Street Photography it is less important.
Message edited by author 2009-06-16 17:22:00. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 05:26:20 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think many people who pick up a camera for the first time think with the idea of making "art" gravitate to the compositional aspect (light/shape/texture). Because of this they often respond to a Street Photog picture with this mindset.
|
I understand everything except for how this fits in. Maybe I'm just thinking backwards...people who pick up a camera for the first time respond to a street photog with what mindset? |
When asked "what do you think about this picture?" I think the typical person who has recently picked up a camera to make "art" responds by looking at composition of light/shape/texture rather than what street photography is really about (ephemeral moments). To the street photog this is moronic, but it is merely two people comminicating with a different medium in mind.
They may, therefore, look at Steve's picture:
and rather than noting the capture of the moment may just reply "haha, look, the one way sign is growing right out of his head!" To the landscape/portrait photographer who creates and controls his composition as much as possible, that would be a big error, but in Street Photography it is less important. |
And to the commercial photographer (as well as the DP challenge photographer) he/she would be concern with simplifying that message so lets do away with everything else in the background and that distracting car. :P
|
|
