|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/09/2015 03:32:27 AM · #26 |
The happiness that comes with winning a ribbon can easily mask the want for change. What I mean is we can become addicted to doing well and the self gratification that comes with that, the fear of not getting that kick stops us from wanting change, it hinders the natural course of our development.
This guy made the transition beautifuly:  NiallOTuama
Message edited by author 2015-03-09 03:33:14. |
|
|
|
03/09/2015 07:47:33 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by jagar:
The happiness that comes with winning a ribbon can easily mask the want for change. What I mean is we can become addicted to doing well and the self gratification that comes with that, the fear of not getting that kick stops us from wanting change, it hinders the natural course of our development.
This guy made the transition beautifuly: NiallOTuama |
True BUT look how long it took him, he's 95 years old. :o |
|
|
|
03/09/2015 09:26:26 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ubique:
Let's talk art. Art without controversy is not art at all. Or if it is, it's Pollyanna art, and that's not art either. |
This statement could use expanding on :-)
... |
No, it couldn't. It's like Samson's hair: its power derives from the glorious sweep of it. |
Oh, all right then.
The ‘Controversy in Art’ question.
There are different ways art can be controversial.
 This photograph by Cory was controversial only as to whether it was within the rules (letter of; spirit of). That kind of controversy often emerges in art competitions. In the annual Archibald Prize for painted portraits, a regular controversy is whether the prize-winning work really is a portrait, or really is a painting; in a good year both are in question. So the depiction isn̢۪t controversial in the way an explicitly salacious nude might have been, but its perceived provenance is.
 This photograph was the judge̢۪s first place selection in one of our juried Art challenges. It was controversial with the judges (see comments), not because of whether it is a photograph, but whether it is art. The photographer chose it for that reason, to tease the boundaries of the definition of (photographic) art.
 This photograph, which is on my wall, is by an Australian artist who more usually works in paint and in mixed media. It̢۪s a picture of a superficially uninteresting scene: a line of modest caravans unrelieved by spectacular scenic backdrop or sunset, unanimated by any human presence. Its only magic is in the light, which is transcendent. The light makes it an interesting photograph but what makes it far more is the juxtaposition. The prosaic with the transcendent. The banal with the ambrosial. That tension between opposites, that anti-intuitive controversy, is what makes it art.
The ‘Formulaic, Populist Mush’ question.
Some at DPC rail against any suggestion that something can̢۪t be both universally acclaimed and art at the same time. So sorry, but it can̢۪t. The two are mutually exclusive. Don̢۪t be despondent; the same is true of popular music, literature, cinema and cuisine, among others. Popular taste is no taste at all, some say, though I̢۪d never put it that bluntly.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you claim? And it is. But contemporary art isn̢۪t often about beauty; and even when it is, it isn̢۪t. It̢۪s about expectation versus perception. Challenging the one, and stretching or even perverting the other.
Is my ‘formulaic, populist mush’ characterisation fair? No, possibly not. But it is accurate. The TOS and my own good manners prevent me from naming names, but imagine a hypothetical DPC member with a long string of ribbons for photographs that are virtually interchangeable. No one picture in the ribbon portfolio materially differs from any other, and each can be absorbed in its every detail, wrung dry of its every offering, with two seconds of consideration.
By definition of the relentless sameness, that̢۪s formulaic. And by definition of all the ribbons, it̢۪s populist. The mush, however, is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
I appreciate that my own definition of art isn't the only one. I can't really say what is art. Only what isn't.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2015 10:52:06 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Oh, all right then.
The ‘Controversy in Art’ question.
There are different ways art can be controversial.
This photograph by Cory was controversial only as to whether it was within the rules (letter of; spirit of). That kind of controversy often emerges in art competitions. In the annual Archibald Prize for painted portraits, a regular controversy is whether the prize-winning work really is a portrait, or really is a painting; in a good year both are in question. So the depiction isn̢۪t controversial in the way an explicitly salacious nude might have been, but its perceived provenance is.
This photograph was the judge̢۪s first place selection in one of our juried Art challenges. It was controversial with the judges (see comments), not because of whether it is a photograph, but whether it is art. The photographer chose it for that reason, to tease the boundaries of the definition of (photographic) art.
This photograph, which is on my wall, is by an Australian artist who more usually works in paint and in mixed media. It̢۪s a picture of a superficially uninteresting scene: a line of modest caravans unrelieved by spectacular scenic backdrop or sunset, unanimated by any human presence. Its only magic is in the light, which is transcendent. The light makes it an interesting photograph but what makes it far more is the juxtaposition. The prosaic with the transcendent. The banal with the ambrosial. That tension between opposites, that anti-intuitive controversy, is what makes it art.
The ‘Formulaic, Populist Mush’ question.
Some at DPC rail against any suggestion that something can̢۪t be both universally acclaimed and art at the same time. So sorry, but it can̢۪t. The two are mutually exclusive. Don̢۪t be despondent; the same is true of popular music, literature, cinema and cuisine, among others. Popular taste is no taste at all, some say, though I̢۪d never put it that bluntly.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you claim? And it is. But contemporary art isn̢۪t often about beauty; and even when it is, it isn̢۪t. It̢۪s about expectation versus perception. Challenging the one, and stretching or even perverting the other.
Is my ‘formulaic, populist mush’ characterisation fair? No, possibly not. But it is accurate. The TOS and my own good manners prevent me from naming names, but imagine a hypothetical DPC member with a long string of ribbons for photographs that are virtually interchangeable. No one picture in the ribbon portfolio materially differs from any other, and each can be absorbed in its every detail, wrung dry of its every offering, with two seconds of consideration.
By definition of the relentless sameness, that̢۪s formulaic. And by definition of all the ribbons, it̢۪s populist. The mush, however, is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
I appreciate that my own definition of art isn't the only one. I can't really say what is art. Only what isn't. |
I love this place.....I learn so much!
|
|
|
|
03/09/2015 11:12:02 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Well if you have a style and it is great scores that you are looking for, the recipe is as follows: always submit a photo that has no negative emotion linked to it, nothing that would force the voter to go deeper than "oh that's beautiful". Never completely reveal yourself in the forums, watch to see which direction other well liked members go, then follow. Send loads of shallow "loved that photo and your so talented" PM's to your ever enlarging group of friends. That's how this place functions and its been like that for a while now.
If on the other hand you would really like to go deeper with your photography and explore your inner creativity do as you wish, you won't be popular and your scores might not be great, you'll be happier though and you also get to keep your integrity. |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Gack -- each time I read this it sounds more and more condescending.
Sorry guys. Why does it always have to work out that if you happen to like a particular style that's popular, that you've lost your integrity.
During the Art challenge, I STILL questioned what is and isn't art.
The majority of National Geographic, I don't find art. I find it extremely good photojournalism, realism, whatever you want to call it. But what the heck is wrong with wanting to show the world what you see?
I can't see it any other way than I see it! I try to be creative. I try to have some sort of imagination.
But I'm sorry -- I'm tired of the crap that goes with enjoying what I enjoy. Why can't I explore what I enjoy exploring and still keep my integrity?
Is it art? No. Do you have to like it? No. But I'm so sick of the fact that my work is a piece of crap because at times it's popular and wins something. Most of the time, I'm putting all I have into it. I'm sorry it's not enough.
Too bad I can't be happy and keep my integrity.
Sorry. It's another dead horse of which I'm sick. |
But it's not an all or nothing deal.......that's the beauty of it.
See, I like John's work, I like yours, I also like Paul's......
And let me just remind you of this:
Yeah..... a RIBBON!!!!!
Doesn't Paul have to cut out his own eyeball for that???? LOL!!!
Sometimes I read these threads and all I can think is, "Why is this person fighting the concept as opposed to adding it to their arsernal/repertoire/thinking????".
My perspectives and understanding of imagery, and the photogs that create them is a constantly evolving thing.
It's *ALL* good, and guess what? It's all part & parcel to my understanding of the art form itself.
Wendy, if someone says this isn't art, then they're limited in their perception.
Why isn't an incredible capture of perfection in nature coupled with some incredible luck, patience, and editing art?
It's that same old thing with others' parameters. It's subjective, it's all-encompassing, constantly and bitterly fought over for the most inane reasons. I have to say I'm pretty amused when people start tossing around terms like integrity when it comes to art. Integrity has to do with character, and has nothing to do with how one creates art, outside of actually being true to oneself with no concern for the thoughts and opinions of others as to any influence on their work.
I hate seeing one of the most prolific and amazing nature photogs I've ever seen get disgusted and being under the impression that her work is held in little or no regard as it pertains to art. It most certainly is.
You want an eye-opener? Go to some pretentious gallery opening where there are nothing but painters in the room. They'll clue you in in a matter of minutes that photography isn't real art at all.
I take a lot from these discussions, but one thing I don't do is think for one instant that anyone's opinion here is more important to my work, such as it is, than my own search for expression. Do I get invaluable help, perspective, and experience? Absolutelyy, but I take what I want and need, and leave the rest.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2015 11:32:24 AM · #31 |
| I just want to say that I just love photography, now I'll let you all get back to differentiating and categorizing it however you please. |
|
|
|
03/09/2015 12:16:32 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
I'm very much looking forward to seeing what you're playing around with, Mr. Mind. |
as am I |
|
|
|
03/09/2015 01:56:39 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by Cory:
I won a couple of ribbons doing this sort of thing..
It caused enough controversy that I abandoned the technique after the second ribbon, and haven't shot one like that since. |
You would be diminished in my estimation if you really abandoned experimental photography, or any kind of photography, simply because it was controversial. If it gave you no satisfaction, then fair enough; give it up. But when were you ever a stranger to controversy? You're a splendid anarchist in so many ways (which is why you'd still have quite a way to fall in my estimation). DPC needs anarchists in the challenges as well as in the forums, Cory. In fact, more so. There has to be a counterpoint to the formulaic, populist mush that so often results from the intentional avoidance of controversy.
Let's talk art. Art without controversy is not art at all. Or if it is, it's Pollyanna art, and that's not art either.
Craft, photographic craft, is another matter of course. But I'd be surprised if you settled for that. It'd be like Rafa Nadal serving underhand; technically it's probably still a serve but not as much fun to watch. |
I'm a lot more confident in my atheism than I am in my art, perhaps because I know that the only thing more full of bullshit than art is religion.
Although - I respect you and jagar enough that it's possible I will revisit this technique sometime, if you enjoyed it, then perhaps it isn't a useless pseudo-art. |
|
|
|
03/09/2015 02:11:42 PM · #34 |
On reflection, after my hasty remark, Ubique's "The happiness that comes with winning a ribbon can easily mask the want for change" gets pretty close to what I should have said.
For me the visceral is crucial; not just a matter of age, though very close to "rage, rage against the dying of the light," in the poem that starts with "The force that through the green fuse drives the flower." (Dylan Thomas). |
|
|
|
03/09/2015 02:51:38 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Oh, all right then.... |
Thank you, sir :-) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 06:09:58 PM  |
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: 08/03/2025 06:09:58 PM EDT.
|
