DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> How important is it that we know...
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 96 of 96, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/15/2010 08:05:41 PM · #76
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
If the photographer intends a message of any kind, it may or may not be received by the viewer. What is important is what the viewer actually does perceive. The viewer is only able to perceive what his biases will allow and nothing more. There is nothing that will disallow any possible interpretation.


So, if a photograph takes on a message to a viewer per his/her biases other than what the photographer originally intended does that mean a failure on the part of the photographer, or may we allow an image to bloom and mature within it's own right to an audience of any possible interpretation?

That sounds mightily dangerous...;-)


Not at all. It's not a failure. I suppose the photographer could consider it a failure if he/she expects everyone else to view the image the same way he/she does. I would hope that the image would 'bloom' into the 'any possible interpretation' scenario. In fact, if the photographer is open-minded enough, he might learn an interpretation that is better than his original intent. If not that, he might learn how to better portray his original intent.
12/15/2010 08:10:51 PM · #77
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I've been reading this whole thread with interest, but I'm now starting to get confused as to whether I am a "photographer" or an "artist". Is "imitative talentless hack" a choice?


Not withstanding the imitative talentless hack option, what's the difference in the first two? I have tried many times in the past to distinguish the two without much luck.

A photographer takes photos. An artist makes photos. Maybe a photographer is one who simply attempts to reproduce what he sees in front of him. Maybe an artist is one who uses what's in front of him to create something greater than what the camera sees.

If the above holds true, then you are faced with defining art, which I have yet to see achieved with significant success. I used a term earlier in this conversation several times. Bias. It's not a negative term. It just defines how any individual is capable of seeing something.
 12/15/2010 09:30:28 PM · #78
It seems to me that creation of an "open" image (using Don's and Clive's term), at least in this community has become almost synonymous with making an abstract, blurry, dark, or otherwise obscured photo. I believe that it does not have to be. Another way (which I am trying to follow in my work, with varying success) is to tell a story. A good story lends itself for different interpretations and reflection even if the photo is sharp and properly exposed. Is it art? I am not sure, but if it affects you on the emotional level, then I think it might be. Poetry is only one kind of literature, there is also a place for prose.

Message edited by author 2010-12-15 22:05:55.
 12/15/2010 09:37:54 PM · #79
Originally posted by LevT:
... Poetry is only one kind of literature, there is also a place for prose.


There is only more or less charge to either. Much poetry is prose.
 12/15/2010 09:39:16 PM · #80
The more energized the prose, the more poetic.

Message edited by author 2010-12-15 21:40:37.
 12/15/2010 09:58:53 PM · #81
yes Zeus, I understand your point. Perhaps my metaphor was not precise, but I only meant poetry vs prose more in the technical sense. You would agree, there is a certain difference between Whitman and Tolstoy, although both are great.
 12/15/2010 10:43:27 PM · #82
Originally posted by yanko:
But aren't you still pushing in a certain direction by the choices you make both in-camera and when you edit down your work? I don't see how that can be avoided without adding a healthy dose of randomness into the equation. Without that you inevitably create a reflection of yourself in your work. The more work you produce the stronger the reflection and the stronger your direction will be.


I don't have much faith in the indivisible self, an atom of essence toward which our work is inexorably drawn. I think reflections and glimpses are all we really have. One's work does develop, yes, but I'm not sure in what direction... some will converge, while others diverge. Some will explore one path, others will have many. Compare the path of Picasso with that of Pollock. See where Duchamp went. For myself, I'd like to progress outward rather than inward, but that's not entirely a matter of what I'd like.
 12/15/2010 10:45:12 PM · #83
Actually, Lev, I don't think "open" images are exclusive to abstract images at dpc. A good story image is indeed as you suggest an open one. This one comes to mind



reminding me of a much earlier one of yours, reminding me of some of Ben Spurgeon's, some of whathisname's and whatshername's......

I like a good lyric as much as a sexy wail.

12/15/2010 10:55:11 PM · #84
Originally posted by posthumous:

ah, but then there's this bit you said about controlling the image and what it conveys. the problem with that is if we control the message too tightly, we generally create an image that has a single message and is finished. a piece of art ideally will have an initial impact but will also reward additional viewings. that multiplicity of meaning requires a certain amount of "letting go and letting God." :) I phrase it that way because I think you understand that concept. The trick is letting go and then afterward checking it to make sure it actually went somewhere... rinse and repeat... see? there is a craft to this.

Yes! A photograph should allow the viewer a hand in its creation.

12/15/2010 11:01:50 PM · #85
This has been a lovely discussion, hasn't it? I'm glad it was started. And is continuing.

R.
 12/15/2010 11:14:43 PM · #86
Hey! Who started this dang thing anyway?
 12/15/2010 11:15:05 PM · #87
Originally posted by LevT:
...You would agree, there is a certain difference between Whitman and Tolstoy, although both are great.


Yes, Whitman packs more heat. :-)

Lev, telling a story is probably what most of us are concerned with in this thread. I believe you can potentially do this via an "obscured photo", as you have it, or in a photo-journalistic manner. Both genres, in the end, depend on an inherent energy, the transport that takes us from here to there. For the story to be good, it has to point certain tensions, it has to do, to commote (I made that up) something beyond the paint, ink or paper it's printed on, and that by staying grounded in itself. And this, I suppose, is not something one can achieve by following a recipe, although I do believe that sincerity (of both maker and process) will lead to credibility.
12/15/2010 11:29:56 PM · #88
yes! i'm going to go take a picture of my commote!
 12/15/2010 11:30:41 PM · #89
Originally posted by skewsme:
yes! i'm going to go take a picture of my commote!


wait until something drops into it
 12/15/2010 11:47:47 PM · #90
Z's point on "grounded in itself" strikes a similarity to Jason's prior point on delivering the message to the viewer (paraphrasing...). Fascinating, as I also see this as an opportunity for the viewer to interpret the image, as it's grounded in intent. Lev's image of the family on a train is a strong example of this.



Message edited by author 2010-12-15 23:57:54.
 12/16/2010 12:04:13 AM · #91
Originally posted by posthumous:
For myself, I'd like to progress outward rather than inward


I read this earlier while at work, so I'm several posts behind. It's a concept that I've had many discussions about with my brother. Regardless of the context or the motive, can one progress outward without first progressing inward? Or, do you need to make that leap, again interpreting a post from Jason earlier, to effect a personal growth as an artist, etc.
 12/16/2010 08:31:58 AM · #92
The unknown - the significance/the importance of not knowing - //www.guardian.co.uk/books/audio/2010/dec/07/jeanette-winterson-italo-calvino

Just a thought. It is a nice discussion...
 12/16/2010 10:10:26 AM · #93
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Not at all. It's not a failure. I suppose the photographer could consider it a failure if he/she expects everyone else to view the image the same way he/she does. I would hope that the image would 'bloom' into the 'any possible interpretation' scenario. In fact, if the photographer is open-minded enough, he might learn an interpretation that is better than his original intent. If not that, he might learn how to better portray his original intent.


"Success is never final. Failure is never fatal. It's the courage to continue that counts."

DPC always weighs the first two quite heavily with unimaginable highs and deep ranting lows. However, most times, I struggle with the latter third as a far greater burden to my heart than the first two anyways. But, I'm in the minority and weird that way...;-)

Thank you for answering this question so succinctly.

You are my hero for today...;-)

P.S. Credit for the quote goes to that dead British guy.
 12/16/2010 11:03:52 AM · #94
William deLikeFlies

Here's the shameless self-promotion:

Art and Artifice

Researchers speak of two halves to the brain.
This gives me more than friends of mine have said,
but indicates this conflict in my head
is symptomatic, not of one insane,
but of a true duality of mind
and matter, artifice opposed to art:
the rule of Reason meets the beating heart
each carrying the mandate of its kind.

And when is Reason ever wrong? It can̢۪t
be. So to give the heart an even break
I take all mind control out of the frame
and pour on paint across the analytic slant.
Poor Reason̢۪s panicking; he thinks I̢۪ll make
a mess so things will never be the same.
12/16/2010 05:23:41 PM · #95
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by posthumous:
For myself, I'd like to progress outward rather than inward


I read this earlier while at work, so I'm several posts behind. It's a concept that I've had many discussions about with my brother. Regardless of the context or the motive, can one progress outward without first progressing inward? Or, do you need to make that leap, again interpreting a post from Jason earlier, to effect a personal growth as an artist, etc.


Because of our limited perspective, our bias, we don't always know whether we are going "inward" or "outward." How better to know the content of your own heart than to work at better understanding someone you dearly love? That is one example.
 12/16/2010 10:43:08 PM · #96
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by posthumous:
For myself, I'd like to progress outward rather than inward


I read this earlier while at work, so I'm several posts behind. It's a concept that I've had many discussions about with my brother. Regardless of the context or the motive, can one progress outward without first progressing inward? Or, do you need to make that leap, again interpreting a post from Jason earlier, to effect a personal growth as an artist, etc.


Because of our limited perspective, our bias, we don't always know whether we are going "inward" or "outward." How better to know the content of your own heart than to work at better understanding someone you dearly love? That is one example.


Yes, and, in the context of DPC, the task/journey is to apply this when viewing the craft of others, as well as our own.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/23/2025 07:37:15 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/23/2025 07:37:15 PM EDT.