| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/05/2004 10:36:52 AM · #51 |
I think there may be a difference between art and artsy.
Art being any form of communication where the artist has to manipulate the elements (forms, tones, colors, etc...) for effective communication. Artsy seems to suggest something else, like some style, mystery, avant gardeness, etc.
Message edited by author 2004-07-05 10:48:16. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 10:52:42 AM · #52 |
For me the word artsy is used on this site as a derogatory adjective, and is not really very useful. It is generally simply used for expressing an individuals criticism of an image presented - which depending on the context could range from contempt to cute. Quite a broad range of meaning. Soup's explaination and use ".....unreal, set up." seems to be fairly accurate and fits how I percieve the use of the word.
................
However......... I would not agree with Soup's opinion, reference and inferred "artsy" designation to sonifo's excellent child portrait - IMO beautifully done in a time honored, traditional pastel hand tinted genre.
................
The word "artsy" to me is awful, and signifies very little in any critique.
Message edited by author 2004-07-05 12:16:39. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 11:05:04 AM · #53 |
well - a photo in a general sense is a snippet of time captured on film.
part of an event that is explained through that snippet - so the viewer can infer what else was happening to cause that snippet, and guided by the photo to a specific end.
an artsy photo - i would say is one where the photographer leaves it to the viewer to come up with his/her own idea of the meaning of the shot.
it doesn't have to be a snippet of time any more, but more a view into what the photographer was thinking when he/she took the photo.
i think sonifo's 3rd place shot lacks either of these attributes.
i don't mean to nit pick her photo - it's just been mentioned here a couple times...
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 11:06:21 AM · #54 |
One person's "artsy" is another person's plain bad photo. I think a lot of folks on here like to "break the rules" and call it art, but it comes across as just a plain bad picture.
HOWEVER, submit it anyway. I submitted this:
thinking it was pretty darn special, and "artsy". A lot of comments I got really clarified my thinking on it, and made me realize and see for the first time the weaknesses of the shot (primarily the fact that there's nowhere for the eye to rest). |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 11:14:36 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by welcher:
One person's "artsy" is another person's plain bad photo. I think a lot of folks on here like to "break the rules" and call it art, but it comes across as just a plain bad picture.
HOWEVER, submit it anyway. I submitted this:
thinking it was pretty darn special, and "artsy". A lot of comments I got really clarified my thinking on it, and made me realize and see for the first time the weaknesses of the shot (primarily the fact that there's nowhere for the eye to rest). |
I rated that one a 9 because it was a real appealing abstract with a atmosphere of early springtime.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 11:15:12 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by soup:
my idea of artsy...
look closely.
 |
fft.
fan-f-tastic! i love stuff like this. maybe its my having grown up in wisconsin, but i can't think of a more elegant way to capture "boundaries"
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 11:17:11 AM · #57 |
i kind of like that shot.
Originally posted by welcher:
One person's "artsy" is another person's plain bad photo. I think a lot of folks on here like to "break the rules" and call it art, but it comes across as just a plain bad picture.
HOWEVER, submit it anyway. I submitted this:
thinking it was pretty darn special, and "artsy". A lot of comments I got really clarified my thinking on it, and made me realize and see for the first time the weaknesses of the shot (primarily the fact that there's nowhere for the eye to rest). |
a bit deeper on the green, maybe. i don't think for that type of shot there HAS to be a focal point for the eye to fall on.
and thanks the-O-ster
its a vermont cow ;}
Message edited by author 2004-07-05 11:18:15.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 11:23:37 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by soup:
and thanks the-O-ster
its a vermont cow ;} |
i was actually referring not to the cow, but to the wire fence and how much of my youth (WI) was spent crossing these boundaries...i actually didn't see the cow until i read some more of the thread :)
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 11:27:41 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by welcher:
One person's "artsy" is another person's plain bad photo. I think a lot of folks on here like to "break the rules" and call it art, but it comes across as just a plain bad picture.
HOWEVER, submit it anyway. I submitted this:
thinking it was pretty darn special, and "artsy". A lot of comments I got really clarified my thinking on it, and made me realize and see for the first time the weaknesses of the shot (primarily the fact that there's nowhere for the eye to rest). |
I don't think a photo has to have a main subject and a place where your eye is drawn. If an artist's intent is to express unrest, tension, movement, etc, and it works with the other elements in the image to portray an intended meaning, then I would say it's a good use of this visual element. In this case, it was meant to portray a kind of light and atomosphere, and so works well. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 11:28:54 AM · #60 |
i think the artsy crowd should start marking their (our) photos with some obscure dark blur in the lower left corner :) - start our own faction within the dilettantes of the DPC.
OOOH! smell that? smells like defection...
eh, its still fun
Message edited by author 2004-07-05 11:29:33.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 11:31:46 AM · #61 |
| Here's another thread some months back that discussed this very subject, if you're interested in more reading (not that long). |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 11:33:27 AM · #62 |
I didn't mean to imply that I didn't like my shot.
Basically, I only submit to DPC shots that I think will do well here. I refuse to submit shots that are "edgy" or whatever, and then complain about the bourgeois who only vote for the eye candy shots. That would be like complaining that concert-goers at a rock show weren't inclined to watch a ballet instead. Nothing is wrong with ballet OR rock, just that delivering one to a group that expects another is just asking for failure.
I submitted this thinking it would do pretty well, and appreciated the comments that told me why it didn't. I still like the shot a lot, and now I've learned a bit more about how to take a particular kind of picture and reach (or not reach) a particular kind of audience.
Oh, and thanks for the comments in this thread on my photo. It's gratifying to see that some folks like it, and responded to my blatant praise fishing! ;)
Message edited by author 2004-07-05 11:34:15. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 11:58:04 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by welcher:
That would be like complaining that concert-goers at a rock show weren't inclined to watch a ballet instead. Nothing is wrong with ballet OR rock, just that delivering one to a group that expects another is just asking for failure. |
You mean a bit like an opera performance at Glastonbury? ; )
If nobody pushes the boundaries then the boundaries will never move.
Oh, and I like your shot too : )
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 02:06:40 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by welcher:
...That would be like complaining that concert-goers at a rock show weren't inclined to watch a ballet instead. Nothing is wrong with ballet OR rock, just that delivering one to a group that expects another is just asking for failure... |
It would depend on the work, its immeasurable effect and influence and, at least, someone's definition of 'failure'.
A picture or work can be very unpopular and, yet, achieve transport.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 02:12:33 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by welcher:
... I refuse to submit shots that are "edgy" or whatever, and then complain about the bourgeois who only vote for the eye candy shots... |
That's what I've learned in the Extraordinary challenge. I submitted a photo that I'd consider "arty". It's a portrait with very strong emotional expression... but on a really negative matter. Those who like the photo seem to love it, but the rest hates it. So in the average, it's being totally trashed.
I still like the photo though, I've just learned DPC isn't about (my definition of) art, it's about capturing, as welcher wrote, what people like to see.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 02:36:43 PM · #66 |
Right. But my point was simply that people will put things on here that aren't "eye candy" or whatever, and complain about the bad scores. That's the "failure" I was talking about.
This site is a fantastic way to learn how to make really, really appealing pictures. To get upset when the site members behave exactly as they always have is counter productive.
Now, as you said, I could submit something that I knew would do no good here, and I might "open some eyes" or whatever. (That's assuming it wasn't actually a piece of junk, which is at least as likely as the alternative!) However, if I then go and complain that it only got a 4.5 and that folks just "didn't get it", I'm doing the site a disservice.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
It would depend on the work, its immeasurable effect and influence and, at least, someone's definition of 'failure'.
A picture or work can be very unpopular and, yet, achieve transport. |
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 02:58:38 PM · #67 |
i would assume please the few - and know they see/saw what i saw - than worry about pleasing everyone - in general - although for entries here i tend about 75% to try to please the masses. art in any form IMO does not aim at pleasing the masses - but more the few that can see what you meant. or art is just a form of expression that steps beyond words.
and it's a given not everyone or anyone for that matter will understand/ enjoy it.
art is a way for the artist to express how they feel - and it's a bonus if some one actually praises you.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 03:08:00 PM · #68 |
I'm the opposite. Every picture I submit here I do so thinking it will place highly. In a lot of cases, I've been proven badly wrong, and I've learned. In those cases, it hasn't been the fault of the "DPC masses", but rather my fault. I knew what the parameters were, and misjudged my photos applicability.
I find that my local photo club is a far better place to try and "push the boundaries". |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 03:13:22 PM · #69 |
The big issue is that while a lot of what is considered good (particularly modern) art, might well be superficially considered crap and certainly breaks all well established styles and conventions, the opposite does not immediately follow. Often, I think people get confused and assume, just because their picture looks superficially crappy, that it doesn't automatically become good art.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 03:53:41 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The big issue is that while a lot of what is considered good (particularly modern) art, might well be superficially considered crap and certainly breaks all well established styles and conventions, the opposite does not immediately follow. Often, I think people get confused and assume, just because their picture looks superficially crappy, that it doesn't automatically become good art. |
I submit a lot of what's intended to be "arty" type photos here ... some of which are misunderstood and get crappy votes, and some of which are just crappy ...
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.*
*Original pejorative term as reported may have been "crud" -- the original interview no doubt substituted the euphemism of the day (late 1940's I believe) for Mr. Sturgeon's actual language. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 03:53:54 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by soup:
[1]...or art is just a form of expression that steps beyond words...
[2]...art is a way for the artist to express how they feel |
[1] Especially true for poetry.
[2] While art as a form of self-expression exists, many artists see themselves as a kind of vessel, leaving no or precious little 'self' in the equation.
Message edited by author 2004-07-05 15:55:08.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 04:20:51 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
...
[2] While art as a form of self-expression exists, many artists see themselves as a kind of vessel, leaving no or precious little 'self' in the equation. |
Don't they call that journalism? |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 04:27:38 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
...
[2] While art as a form of self-expression exists, many artists see themselves as a kind of vessel, leaving no or precious little 'self' in the equation. |
Don't they call that journalism? |
What I was thinking of has absolutely nothing to do with journalism.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 05:58:16 PM · #74 |
i think that the fact 'artists' are renowned for their art may deafen the reality that they are expressing themselves - or at the point they aren't expressing themselves, and just producing work for 'the masses', they have become non-artists.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
1] Especially true for poetry.
[2] While art as a form of self-expression exists, many artists see themselves as a kind of vessel, leaving no or precious little 'self' in the equation.
|
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 07:04:03 PM · #75 |
"The position of the artist is humble. He is essentially a channel." Piet Mondrian
..................................................
I am hard pressed to discover work by anyone that is accalimed and renowned which is not based on diligent attention and dedication to practice of the craft regardless of the craft or who is intended as an audience. |
|
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: 07/18/2025 06:59:15 AM EDT.
