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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Is the onus upon the viewer or photographer?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 62 of 62, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/25/2012 05:48:11 PM · #51
One of the great minds of theoretical physics told us,
"A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
If your image is too complex to understand without a guide book, it isn't much of an image.

"A man should not strive to eliminate his complexes but to get into accord with them: they are legitimately what directs his conduct in the world." Sigmund Freud
If what you want to say is complicated, some people are going to be confused by it. Boil it down to the essentials, but don't leave anything essential out.
 10/25/2012 08:06:36 PM · #52
...or as they say in common parlance... use the K.I.S.S principle. :O)

Ray
 10/25/2012 08:36:46 PM · #53
Perhaps some enlightenment
 10/25/2012 09:46:05 PM · #54
Originally posted by daisydavid:
Perhaps some enlightenment


That was fascinating. Wow.
 10/25/2012 10:25:18 PM · #55
Originally posted by daisydavid:
Perhaps some enlightenment


A fine article if you view photography primarily as an investment vehicle, but unless you are looking at an image primarily as "property value" what is his point? When I produce an image I could care less if it has value as a collector's item. It's value is in conveying a way of seeing a particular moment. It is not intended as an object to be harboured and traded for it's monetary value, but as sharing. so the more it is reproduced, the more times someone sees it, the more value it has.

The dreary black and white images of flowers in vases that accompany the article, doctored to look old timey, aping a set of photographic limitations that died out before the author was born, are a condemnation of his notions of what "real" photography is. He manipulates what he sees in an effort to find some deeper truth, when the truth lies closer to what his sensor saw than the result of his artfull manipulations.

Message edited by author 2012-10-25 22:26:24.
 10/26/2012 09:14:17 AM · #56
Originally posted by daisydavid:
Perhaps some enlightenment


That's a funny link because it's a blogger discussing an essay before he reprints it. The blogger is trying to tackle John Berger's ideas, and utterly failing.

I highly recommend reading John Berger. Many of my ideas are stolen from him.
 10/26/2012 10:43:40 AM · #57
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
One of the great minds of theoretical physics told us,
"A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
If your image is too complex to understand without a guide book, it isn't much of an image.

"A man should not strive to eliminate his complexes but to get into accord with them: they are legitimately what directs his conduct in the world." Sigmund Freud
If what you want to say is complicated, some people are going to be confused by it. Boil it down to the essentials, but don't leave anything essential out.


Granted, every photo doesn't need to be a James Joyce novel, but mystery, complexity, its all good, even if you don't understand why, even if you don't get the "objective correlative" aspect, and have to make up meanings on your own- subjective style.
 10/26/2012 11:11:04 AM · #58
[/quote] Granted, every photo doesn't need to be a James Joyce novel, but mystery, complexity, its all good, even if you don't understand why, even if you don't get the "objective correlative" aspect, and have to make up meanings on your own- subjective style. [/quote]

This is what leads to low scores, if you want to get artsy and make people think
thats great but too far and you turn people off.
You don't want confusion and disappointment to be the emotions you bring
out in the viewer. Not unless its the challenge topic.
10/26/2012 11:17:09 AM · #59
"By their nature, photographs have little or no property value because they have no rarity value. The very principle of photography is that the resulting image is not unique, but on the contrary infinitely reproducible. Thus, in twentieth-century terms, photographs are records of things seen. Let us consider them no closer to works of art than cardiograms. We shall then be freer of illusions. Our mistake has been to categorize things as art by considering certain phases of the process of creation. But logically this can make all man-made objects art. It is more useful to categorize art by what has become its social function. It functions as property. Accordingly, photographs are mostly outside the category."

Setting aside the poor blogger. This is my favorite paragraph--a complicated idea explained w/a nice economy of words.

A photograph is not only infinitely reproducible, it is not even an original. A photograph is always a copy. The original is whatever was in front of the camera (he says this, too). A photograph is a record, or a memento, of things seen. Which is why I think I've become fascinated by more abstract, interpretive photographs.

I had no idea who John Berger is, but now I'm off to find more to read. I've been looking for the words to explain this ever since I started seriously thinking about photography. It's a treat to find it already put to words for me, exactly as I'm sure I would eventually have figured out how to say it. "D
 10/26/2012 11:25:26 AM · #60
Originally posted by pixelpig:
A photograph is a record, or a memento, of things seen. Which is why I think I've become fascinated by more abstract, interpretive photographs.

For me, photos with people in them usually resonate more than anything else. That's the reason I love street photography and some styles of portraiture over everything else.
 10/26/2012 11:33:43 AM · #61
But seeing a thing, & wanting to take a picture of it, is not the same thing as looking at a picture & trying to understand it.

Because it's a record of something seen, which we are aware of, we expect it to be as readily accessible as anything we see. If it looks like an inaccurate record, if it looks like the something seen has been tampered with, we react as if to a lie. If it's not instantly recognizable we react as if to an attempted lie.

My favorites of my own photos are the ones that don't look familiar to me, every time I look at them.

Message edited by author 2012-10-26 12:05:46.
 10/26/2012 11:38:36 AM · #62
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
A photograph is a record, or a memento, of things seen. Which is why I think I've become fascinated by more abstract, interpretive photographs.

For me, photos with people in them usually resonate more than anything else. That's the reason I love street photography and some styles of portraiture over everything else.


I enjoy street photography especially because for me it's a secret glimpse into a world that's there when I'm not. Seen through someone else's eyes. Familiar and unfamiliar at the same time.



Message edited by author 2012-10-26 11:57:46.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 07:16:06 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: 07/27/2025 07:16:06 PM EDT.