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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> An interview with John Setzler (jmsetzler)
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 40 of 40, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/22/2004 08:10:10 PM · #26
I'm still wondering what critics Dan know of that don't consider photography an art. Not being facetious, just curious..I didn't know such creatures existed.
 06/22/2004 08:14:28 PM · #27
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I'm still wondering what critics Dan know of that don't consider photography an art. Not being facetious, just curious..I didn't know such creatures existed.


There are some and I have read about them. It's a valid question. They don't consider re-capturing something that is already there to be 'art'. They are more in line with the 'art must be created from within' thought pattern. They would also not consider a painting of an existing landscape to be art for the same reason.
06/22/2004 08:14:43 PM · #28
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I'm still wondering what critics Dan know of that don't consider photography an art. Not being facetious, just curious..I didn't know such creatures existed.


Take your pick ;)

Message edited by author 2004-06-22 20:14:53.
 06/22/2004 08:19:02 PM · #29
I think this a good way to expand the general knowledge of photography, technique, rules and all pertinent data related to DPC. It brings to life talented practitioners of the art. It helps to focus on many points and adds a personal dimension which I am certain will benefit neophytes as well as the seasoned pro.
 06/22/2004 08:19:29 PM · #30
When I was at university (a few years ago now), I shared a group house for about 3 years.. The other residents were of course art students, and I had a hard time trying to convince them that photography was a form of art. Not recognized 'critics' per se, but I'm sure there must be critics out there with that attitude, for them to garner this opinion. Perhaps I should re-word the question for future interviews, what do you think?
 06/22/2004 08:20:52 PM · #31
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I'm still wondering what critics Dan know of that don't consider photography an art. Not being facetious, just curious..I didn't know such creatures existed.


There are some and I have read about them. It's a valid question. They don't consider re-capturing something that is already there to be 'art'. They are more in line with the 'art must be created from within' thought pattern. They would also not consider a painting of an existing landscape to be art for the same reason.


If it valid, I'll stick with it.
 06/22/2004 08:25:05 PM · #32
Originally posted by jmsetzler:


There are some and I have read about them. It's a valid question. They don't consider re-capturing something that is already there to be 'art'. They are more in line with the 'art must be created from within' thought pattern. They would also not consider a painting of an existing landscape to be art for the same reason.


I think often it is more an issue that photography is just craft. Painting an existing scene still requires artistic process (the putting of paint on a canvas for example) allowing expression in brush stroke (e.g., Seurat vs van Gough) and so forth. Photography is all mechanical, chemical, optical and just craft. The 'artist' is not present in the process.
 06/22/2004 08:29:51 PM · #33
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I'm still wondering what critics Dan know of that don't consider photography an art. Not being facetious, just curious..I didn't know such creatures existed.


Take your pick ;)


cool, people are crazy or jealous or I dunno what....I was reading on CBC a few months back an article with an art critic in Calgary who went on and on about how amateur artists aren't actually creating art. *rolls eyes*
 06/26/2004 08:15:12 AM · #34
Originally posted by Gordon:
Photography is all mechanical, chemical, optical and just craft. The 'artist' is not present in the process.

I question this rationalization. Painting is arguably mechanical, chemical, and craft etc.

I believe the camera recorded the image, but who was there aiming the camera and depressing the shutter? Are we to blame a camera for poor composition? How about an out of focus image? That could be debated on mechanical or human error, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that it was fault (or intention) of the photographer.

Whether processing film or editing digital images, we still have a great deal of control over the final image. This, I believe, shows the artist's "presence."

A photograph is a moment in time, perceived through someone else's eyes (and camera for that matter).

Message edited by author 2004-06-26 08:22:18.
 06/26/2004 08:42:35 AM · #35
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think often it is more an issue that photography is just craft. Painting an existing scene still requires artistic process (the putting of paint on a canvas for example) allowing expression in brush stroke (e.g., Seurat vs van Gough) and so forth. Photography is all mechanical, chemical, optical and just craft. The 'artist' is not present in the process.


I think the artist is present, but not in the same way as painting or drawing. The artist is present in a photograph through the composition and subject choice. The finer aspects of this presence are outlined in the perspective, the creative use of light, creativity in the exposure, post processing (dark room or digital), and final presentation. Critics who choose to ingnore photography as a valid art form just simply want to deny this.

From what I can see, with my very limited knowledge/understanding of fine art, art critics tend to focus on emotion. They are quite talented at finding emotion in various forms of art. I have listened and read critics commentaries on emotion in pieces where I can't see anything. One particular piece I remember in a local gallery was a simple kanji script that had been painted on a flattened piece of birch bark. The particular critic who was commenting on this piece could see anger, angst, depression and fear in the brushstrokes. This work was considered, by the critic, to be valuable because of the message the artist was sending via brush stroke technique rather than the actual image itself. I didn't catch the first part of this commentary and I do not know what the literal meaning of the kanji script was either.

What I do know about this particular piece was that I thought the red pain on the dirty white bark surface created a nice color contrast. It was bold and unelegant. In my eyes, it was visually appealing, but I would never have been able to dig into the realm of artist emotion by viewing this work. The other unknown to me was if the critic was correct. If the critic knew the artist personally, that knowledge may have played a role in the critique. If the critic knew the meaning of the kanji script, there could have been some influence there as well.

In photography, emotion can be described and projected in many ways. I think maybe that some critics are just not interested in the creative process of photography. Any critic who is alive today has certainly been exposed to photography throughout his/her life.

Maybe I'm rambling here, but I think the critique process, as Gordon has mentioned several times in the past, is dependent on some knowledge of the artist.
06/26/2004 08:50:00 AM · #36
Then let the generalization stand that anyone can be a critic by human nature of feeling emotion, forming one's own opinion and expressing it. Coincidentally, any person capable of producing anything of aesthetic or otherwise sentimental value by at least one person (creator included) may be defined as an "artist."
 06/26/2004 09:16:15 AM · #37
Originally posted by Bran-O-Rama:
Then let the generalization stand that anyone can be a critic by human nature of feeling emotion, forming one's own opinion and expressing it. Coincidentally, any person capable of producing anything of aesthetic or otherwise sentimental value by at least one person (creator included) may be defined as an "artist."


I agree :) I don't know what qualifies a critic or an artist. If I say I'm a critic or an artist, then so be it :)
 06/26/2004 11:32:12 AM · #38
I'm reminded of a quote I read the other day by Louis Nizer: "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; but a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist."
 06/26/2004 12:04:17 PM · #39
What a wonderful quote!
 06/26/2004 08:07:22 PM · #40
So what do you call a man who works with his mouth and not with his brain?.. A politician.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 11:54:55 AM

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: 08/02/2025 11:54:55 AM EDT.