| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2004 10:02:20 PM · #1 |
I've just come from visiting several juried exhibitions of photography, and the stuff there was amazing. Actually, I found much of the work here on DPC to be just as good!
It was odd though, that while there is a certain 'DPC style' that wins ribbons here, the photos at these exhibitions were much different. Soft focus, blur, grainy, often very plain subjects--these are the kinds of photos that were accepted into the exhibitions. They were very effective photos. The crystal clear, very approachable photography here on DPC was not to be found at any of the galleries I visited.
Where is the current world of photography headed? And where does DPC fit in?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 10:21:50 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
I've just come from visiting several juried exhibitions of photography, and the stuff there was amazing. Actually, I found much of the work here on DPC to be just as good!
It was odd though, that while there is a certain 'DPC style' that wins ribbons here, the photos at these exhibitions were much different. Soft focus, blur, grainy, often very plain subjects--these are the kinds of photos that were accepted into the exhibitions. They were very effective photos. The crystal clear, very approachable photography here on DPC was not to be found at any of the galleries I visited.
Where is the current world of photography headed? And where does DPC fit in? |
Well usually exhibition work is more...artful. Not the word I'm looking for, but it'll do. I think that for the most part here on the site a lot of people are taking pictures of things they think look "neat" or "cool" or they get an idea and it's about trying to make that idea a reality. I think that when you get to exhibition style work it's usually photographers that set out with a clear idea from the beginning about what they want to say and have an emotional connection to the work. Which is of course not to say that people on this site don't have an emotional connection to their work. That is far from the truth, I think. It's just that people here are mostly doing it for fun. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 10:58:13 PM · #3 |
| Quite a few Picture of the Day pictures on various websites and magazines probably who never win a ribbon on DPC, but somehow they do win. That's why it's good to have a open mind before viewing, voting and deciphering the topic. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:07:01 PM · #4 |
In a juried art exhibition, each photo gets more than 3-5 seconds of viewing time and consideration. There also aren't likely 400 of them in any given exhibition. I have been to quite a few photography exhibitions in our local art museum and none of them would be considered very DPC worthy for the most part.
I think its bad to compare DPC to what you see in an exhibition like that. There certainly are some images around here that would easily fit into those exhibitions, but they are not high in number compared to the well-shot and perfectly exposed mundane subjects.
If a juried art exhibition worked the same way DPC does, you would see DPC-like images in juried art exhibitions :) In most exhibitions, there is an elimination process that removes all the crap. There will be a small 'jury' that says yes or no to any specific image. They weed out what they don't like. The people who do this are usually trained to some extent in art. They know when a photo has the type of impact they want to exhibit. The big difference is that there are not 400 people deciding what goes and what stays. The small number of people who make these decisions often think alike as well.
When I go to some of these exhibitions, I see stuff that I don't like. I see lots of stuff that I do like as well.
In a nutshell, 'fine art' won't often float to the top of a challenge. Fine art is subjective enough that it usually escapes the fleeting glances of challenge voters. The more artistic something is, the smaller the group of people who really appreciate it :)
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:21:02 PM · #5 |
That's a good question. To me, this site represents all the technical "pretty picture" type stuff. Which is fine and is a good way to learn about different things like dof, composition, color and lots of other things. But it seems that emotional connections to the dirty grimy often heart breaking world, real emotion, not pretend emotion, are not encouraged or really accepted here. So, maybe the difference between what you saw at the galleries and what you see here is that this is a pretend world and that is the real world. In the real world, people don't care if there is a blown out highlight on someone's forehead or if their understanding of the theme is different than someone else's, they care about the real story behind the capture of a moment in time.
So. To sum up that ramble. Here people are concentrating on perfecting their technique, out there, people are perfecting their understanding of their place in the world and how to show other's what they feel. And of course, this is my personal take on the question. Not saying one is better than the other. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:40:03 PM · #6 |
The cameras will get better and better...no doubt. The 20D is fricking incredible.
But if the photos are limited to 640 pixies...I think if you have just as good of a chance with a point and shoot as a DSLR with slick glass.
David sorta proves that point. Dude is a great photographer....
I really think at DPC everyone has a shot. Even me.
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 23:44:48. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:41:25 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The more artistic something is, the smaller the group of people who really appreciate it :) |
Yes, and those few probably appreciate it because some "expert", or perhaps society as a whole, told that they should. It's art fashion. :)
It's funny, but since art is a form of communication I would expect the piece of art with the largest group of admirers to be considered the more successful and 'artistic' work.
Of course, this is just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:47:40 PM · #8 |
| Entrance into a juried exhibition is regulated by people knowledgable in photography. Entrance to dpc challenges is comparatively very open. And the winners here are selected by a group that meets no prerequisites. I think half or more of the voters are at, or near, the beginning of their photography journey. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:52:14 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
...while there is a certain 'DPC style' that wins ribbons here, the photos at these exhibitions were much different. Soft focus, blur, grainy, often very plain subjects--these are the kinds of photos that were accepted into the exhibitions. They were very effective photos. The crystal clear, very approachable photography here on DPC was not to be found at any of the galleries I visited.
Where is the current world of photography headed? And where does DPC fit in? |
Here in BC, at this time of year, the salmon runs. The Salmon runs and has done so for thousands of years. He knows when and where to go. He knows and does not know.
Photography, being so much younger, has looked everywhere for directions and is still less likely to follow the same stream up to its source. Being just another art form, she is prone to reflect herself in some pretty puddle for another decade or century before she might be inclined to prove a use.
The distractions are plentiful. DPC is one just tiny one of 'em. She's not all frivolty either, as we have seen before she got interested in the Adobe boys. She will be of use once she realizes that he has a soul and that the world is round.
She may discover that truth is as plain as the subjects in images at an exhibition. To make sure that her own images are not mistaken for anything else but the truth, these will lack the kind of lure we have become so accustomed to. They may be as grainy as the daily sky or a newspaper image depicting a catastrophy or a disaster. They feel gritty, when she needs to get her teeth into some tough stuff.
They can be gorgeous and delightful too, when she is alive with the inexplicable magic of the world we live in. None of her pictures will be as approachable as a child or a vendor of stolen goods. They will speak, instead, to the lonely and the dissatified.
DPC will fit in alright, now that we don't have grand central stations anymore and transport comes at such high cost to every citizen.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:52:53 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think its bad to compare DPC to what you see in an exhibition like that. There certainly are some images around here that would easily fit into those exhibitions, but they are not high in number compared to the well-shot and perfectly exposed mundane subjects. |
I don't know that I'm comparing, but many of us are gaining the skills to do other things than DPC. Like you John! It's nice to know what's going on out there. Of course, there are more directions to go besides fine art photography. Magazines and stock photography are just two of them.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
If a juried art exhibition worked the same way DPC does, you would see DPC-like images in juried art exhibitions :) In most exhibitions, there is an elimination process that removes all the crap. There will be a small 'jury' that says yes or no to any specific image. |
I concur. In a large exhibition, they'll get a few hundred entries, but he exhibition jury will finalize that to the size of the gallery or target number, such as 20 or 30. There are usually not 'prizes' awarded--if you're accepted, then you've participated in a juried exhibition, and you've now got fodder for your resume.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
In a nutshell, 'fine art' won't often float to the top of a challenge. Fine art is subjective enough that it usually escapes the fleeting glances of challenge voters. The more artistic something is, the smaller the group of people who really appreciate it :) |
This may be, but then there are some artist whose work seems to gain common acceptance--folks like Ansel Adams, Sally Gall, David Muench, and others.
Anyway, an interesting question and a very thoughtful response, John.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:55:16 PM · #11 |
| As far as the largest amount of admirers, well, that just doesn't cut it as an argument. Don't a lot of people watch a lot of junk on TV? Would you say the program with the most viewers is the most sophisticated program to watch? |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:59:53 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Entrance into a juried exhibition is regulated by people knowledgable in photography. Entrance to dpc challenges is comparatively very open. And the winners here are selected by a group that meets no prerequisites. I think half or more of the voters are at, or near, the beginning of their photography journey. |
Maybe, but who ever thought they were being judged by pros....
I never did...pretty stuffy remark, I guess we are not worthy.....heh.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:03:45 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The more artistic something is, the smaller the group of people who really appreciate it :) |
Yes, and those few probably appreciate it because some "expert", or perhaps society as a whole, told that they should. It's art fashion. :)
It's funny, but since art is a form of communication I would expect the piece of art with the largest group of admirers to be considered the more successful and 'artistic' work.
Of course, this is just my opinion. |
It's a common opinion and it's definitely not wrong. It makes me think about artists in general that I have met. Some of them want to be widely accepted and some of them are in it for self gratification. Those who are in it for self gratification consider it a bonus when someone else likes their work, but they are generally not disappointed when others hate what they see.
The ones who want to be widely accepted suffer a lot more disappointment than those who don't care. DPChallenge is an opportunity to be widely accepted, but there are a lot of hard feelings around here when something is not popular. Every week, there are forum posts complaining about how poorly something finished or how something should have done better. I agree that some of these image are underrated. By the same token, some of them are grossly overrated. After all, it's only my opinion.
We can't allow the ratings we receive here on DPC to define the overall worth of any given image either. The ratings we get here show a couple of things, but it not a rating that really describes the 'worth' of an image. In a juried art competition, you are not being judged by your competition. I think that is a huge factor.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:12:49 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Entrance into a juried exhibition is regulated by people knowledgable in photography. Entrance to dpc challenges is comparatively very open. And the winners here are selected by a group that meets no prerequisites. I think half or more of the voters are at, or near, the beginning of their photography journey. |
Maybe, but who ever thought they were being judged by pros....
I never did...pretty stuffy remark, I guess we are not worthy.....heh. |
I didn't mean to sound stuffy. I certainly don't claim to be in the "people knowledgable in photography" class if that's what you thought. Just pointing out the differences between juried exhibitions and dpc challenges without being judgemental. Trying to explain the difference in the types of photos that dsidwell spoke of. At least that was my intention. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:25:35 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Riggs:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Entrance into a juried exhibition is regulated by people knowledgable in photography. Entrance to dpc challenges is comparatively very open. And the winners here are selected by a group that meets no prerequisites. I think half or more of the voters are at, or near, the beginning of their photography journey. |
Maybe, but who ever thought they were being judged by pros....
I never did...pretty stuffy remark, I guess we are not worthy.....heh. |
I didn't mean to sound stuffy. I certainly don't claim to be in the "people knowledgable in photography" class if that's what you thought. Just pointing out the differences between juried exhibitions and dpc challenges without being judgemental. Trying to explain the difference in the types of photos that dsidwell spoke of. At least that was my intention. |
Now you make me feel bad, and I may cry.
I pop off a little too much. I have trained pit bulls to bite off my feet if I ever do it again.
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 00:29:02. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:29:19 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
. . . We can't allow the ratings we receive here on DPC to define the overall worth of any given image either. The ratings we get here show a couple of things, but it not a rating that really describes the 'worth' of an image. In a juried art competition, you are not being judged by your competition. I think that is a huge factor. |
So true.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:39:55 AM · #17 |
Here is the finalists and winners from an exhibition that I entered in June. I still don't like the Best in Show. Can't see it on many walls. But that is my opinion.
Definitely would not have been over a 5 here. Again it is subjective, and the juror read alot into what is means (again, my opinion).
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:43:49 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Here is the finalists and winners from an exhibition that I entered in June. I still don't like the Best in Show. Can't see it on many walls. But that is my opinion.
Definitely would not have been over a 5 here. Again it is subjective, and the juror read alot into what is means (again, my opinion). |
You're right. I really like most of the photos--except for the 'best of show'!
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:13:02 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Here is the finalists and winners from an exhibition that I entered in June. I still don't like the Best in Show. Can't see it on many walls. But that is my opinion.
Definitely would not have been over a 5 here. Again it is subjective, and the juror read alot into what is means (again, my opinion). |
You're right. I really like most of the photos--except for the 'best of show'! |
Whereas I love the BoS. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:15:38 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Here is the finalists and winners from an exhibition that I entered in June. I still don't like the Best in Show. Can't see it on many walls. But that is my opinion.
Definitely would not have been over a 5 here. Again it is subjective, and the juror read alot into what is means (again, my opinion). |
You're right. I really like most of the photos--except for the 'best of show'! |
Whereas I love the BoS. |
I guess that just goes to show how subjective everything is. I'm sure glad photography can be an art form; if it were pure science, it just wouldn't excite me as much.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 02:00:32 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by pcody:
As far as the largest amount of admirers, well, that just doesn't cut it as an argument. Don't a lot of people watch a lot of junk on TV? Would you say the program with the most viewers is the most sophisticated program to watch? |
I don't think that too many TV shows even pretend to be serious art. Most are intended to be mildly entertaining and to sell products via commercials. I suppose some might consider them a form of art, but to me it would be like comparing mass-produced 'motel' art to true fine art. No comparison at all really.
I also do not believe that sophistication is in any way required, or at times even desired, in a good work of art. Many artists admire and strive for simplicity, even to extremes.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 10:42:09 AM · #22 |
It may not be exactly on this topic, but this article from yesterday's New York Times does discuss a recently popular exhibition and new book, which have languished for some 20 years until the photography-consuming public was "ready" for it ...
===================================
November 6, 2004
Suffering Resonates 20 Years Later
By CAROL POGASH
BERKELEY, Calif., Nov. 5 - Hunched over stacks of slim books with a microphone dangling from a boom just above his head, Sebastião Salgado scribbled his signature on one flyleaf after another in a conference room at the University of California's Graduate School of Journalism. Volunteers scurried back and forth, pushing forward the next stack as a student videotaped the moment.
Although celebrity status is nothing new to Mr. Salgado, a Brazilian who at 60 is one of the world's most celebrated documentary photographers, there was a poignancy to the event.
"Sahel: The End of the Road,'' just published by the University of California Press, was a long time coming.
Twenty years ago Mr. Salgado spent 15 months in that parched region south of the Sahara photographing starving refugees with a 35-millimeter Leica. Eventually he mailed a box of prints to a friend, Fred Ritchin, formerly the picture editor of The New York Times Magazine, in the hope of interesting a museum or a book publisher in them. (Mr. Ritchin wrote the introduction to the book.)
The images of graceful bone-thin human beings etched against the desert in Chad, Ethiopia, Mali and Sudan have a cinematic sense of motion. A mother with a metal pot atop her head and the rest of her belongings on her back scans the skies for a wayward bomb. An emaciated boy trudges across the sands, his legs resembling the dead limbs of trees in the background. A father carries his dead child to a refugee camp, having promised him that he would.
Today the photographs seem newly relevant as famine in Sudan again grips the Darfur region, where Arab militias have been slaughtering African villagers and driving them from their homes in a campaign of ethnic cleansing.
But back then publishers told Mr. Ritchin no one would buy the book because of the subject matter. He countered that people had a "moral obligation'' to know what was happening in other parts of the world.
One book agent shed tears upon viewing the photos but said they were simply too depressing, Mr. Ritchin said. The book was published only in France (1986) and in Spain (1988.)
Mr. Ritchin approached a series of museums but was unable to persuade any of them to organize a show. Mr. Salgado, then barely 40, had spent his life documenting images of suffering but had not yet gained wide fame as a photographer. (His career rocketed after 1990, when the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art organized a midcareer retrospective of his work.) Today his haunting images of vast migrations, landless peasants and downtrodden miners in the world's poorest regions have cult status among photography lovers.
The book was finally published last month through the intercession of Ken Light, a professor at the University of California who directs its Center for Photography, which publicizes important but forgotten works of documentary photographers. He edited the book.
Two years ago the university's art museum organized an exhibition of Mr. Salgado's "Migrations" series. "We were walking across the campus conversing about what was happening in the world,'' Mr. Light recounted, "and I said, 'We really need to publish this book in the U.S.' ''
Mr. Salgado's book was published as part of the journalism school's contemporary photography series in conjunction with the University of California Press. The school offered to subsidize the printing of the book. So far 7,500 copies of "Sahel'' ($45, but available for less online), the university press's lead book for this fall, have been printed.
Mr. Salgado attributed the receptivity partly to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, which showed that the United States is not immune to "the disequilibrium of the world.'' Twenty years ago "the American public was not prepared to see these pictures," he said, adding, "Now it seems they are."
"Photography is just a language,'' he said in an interview. What interests him, he said, is the subject being discussed.
Yet, Mr. Ritchin contends that the public cares more about his friend, the famous Mr. Salgado, than it does about the crises depicted in his pictures. "I'd hate to think that in the 1940's we would have needed Cary Grant to talk about the Holocaust before anyone would do something,'' he said.
Whatever the motivation, Mr. Salgado now draws crowds. When the museum was exhibiting his "Migrations'' series in 2002, people rushed into an auditorium where he was about to speak. Some 1,000 stood outside stomping their feet and pounding on the doors, prompting officials to call the police.
"His stuff gets to people,'' said Orville Schell, the graduate journalism school's dean, who wrote the foreword for the book. "Isn't that the point?''
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 11:33:38 AM · #23 |
I agree with you that the juror(s) read a lot into what the "best of show" photo means. This is something that most of the time doesn't get discussed here on DPC. We are more concerned with details of technical matters, but don't discuss what the intent of the communication is and if the photographer/artist accomplished his/her intents through the use of the technical.
What do you think is the communication intended in the best of show photograph and how was it accomplished? Why do you think it won over the others?(for anyone to answer) Personally, my favorite in the International Fine Arts Exhibition is the Staircase in the Museum shot.
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Here is the finalists and winners from an exhibition that I entered in June. I still don't like the Best in Show. Can't see it on many walls. But that is my opinion.
Definitely would not have been over a 5 here. Again it is subjective, and the juror read alot into what is means (again, my opinion). |
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 11:36:53. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:24:18 PM · #24 |
| I think it would be great if people here would be willing to post a few shots that they considered to be' fine art' (maybe another thread) and maybe we could use it as a point of communication and expanding our ability to see and communicate differently, maybe even a 'fine art' type challenge would be good, where we are encourseged to push the limits a little. I think it may help us to gain different skills than just the technical ones that are easier to learn here. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:43:06 PM · #25 |
| I'm glad for the fans of dark, grainy, weird photos that they have places to go for their "art". I like "normal" shots, and I'm much happier here. Lets not copy others - VIVA LA DIFFERENCE! |
|
