| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/03/2011 12:16:38 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Framed cave paintings? |
Grog not use frames very much. Too many "border patrol" give low vote for frames.
 
|
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:20:07 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
it needs to create a sense of impressionism, and it had better be unfinished (like... NOT eyecandy), and a bit of grain is good, along with some blur, but only to enhance motion, or time, or to help tell a story, or better yet, a part of a story, one that fascinates and leaves the viewer hungry, and allows them to finish the story any one of a thousand ways... That is fine art. Or not, as I'm sure I'm pretty much wrong about all of this, or not. *shrug* ;) |
I have to disagree on that. My entry in the last fine art challenge did well with both the popular vote and the jury. It can easily be considered eye candy and I don't think it conveyed any story at all.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:38:54 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
it needs to create a sense of impressionism, and it had better be unfinished (like... NOT eyecandy), and a bit of grain is good, along with some blur, but only to enhance motion, or time, or to help tell a story, or better yet, a part of a story, one that fascinates and leaves the viewer hungry, and allows them to finish the story any one of a thousand ways... That is fine art. Or not, as I'm sure I'm pretty much wrong about all of this, or not. *shrug* ;) |
I have to disagree on that. My entry in the last fine art challenge did well with both the popular vote and the jury. It can easily be considered eye candy and I don't think it conveyed any story at all. |
Agreed. Our previous experience tells us that there's no one "style" that qualifies as "Art". You just have to reach people, somehow, it seems.
R. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:43:46 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
it needs to create a sense of impressionism, and it had better be unfinished (like... NOT eyecandy), and a bit of grain is good, along with some blur, but only to enhance motion, or time, or to help tell a story, or better yet, a part of a story, one that fascinates and leaves the viewer hungry, and allows them to finish the story any one of a thousand ways... That is fine art. Or not, as I'm sure I'm pretty much wrong about all of this, or not. *shrug* ;) |
I have to disagree on that. My entry in the last fine art challenge did well with both the popular vote and the jury. It can easily be considered eye candy and I don't think it conveyed any story at all. |
Agreed. Our previous experience tells us that there's no one "style" that qualifies as "Art". You just have to reach people, somehow, it seems.
R. |
Really? Both of you failed to see the forest for the trees?
Message edited by author 2011-03-03 00:45:16. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 05:14:20 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Fiora:
So anyone want to define Fine Arts for me?
I am rather uneducated when it comes to this sort of thing. Looking through the challenge entries, it appears the blurrier the better, but I am sure that if I were to submit merely a blurry picture that it would be slaughtered.
Care to enlighten me. For something to be "fine art" what does it need to accomplish? |
For me its about human involvement, a somewhat clinical, perfect rendition of a pretty scene may transport me to that place and wow me with its crisp technicals but would, in regard to aspiring to create something with a label of 'art', fall short.
That human involvement would perhaps manifest itself in a way of viewing (the scene and the final image) that indicates some choices have been made by the photographer and that those choices emphasise human involvement rather than trying to place a distance between the image and the photographer. An image that embraces the subjective and shuns the objective.
There are all sorts of ways to do that - deeply emotive subject matter, low fidelity techniques that force the viewer (and photographer) to interpolate and extrapolate beyond what is present in the pixels of the image, or articulation with a pre-existing (socially constructed) body of work - not meant to work as a stand-alone piece but rather to be fully appreciated through the way in which it resonates with, complements, mocks, references (etc) other works.
The upshot of all that is, I think, that if you feel you haven't made any choices in relation to the image (choosing to not choose and allow an image to emerge spontaneously is still a creative choice) that would enhance the 'made by a human being' or even 'made by this unique human being' status of the image, then you have probably fallen short.
Having said all of that, I have no expertise in this area and this is just as likely to be complete bollocks ;-)
But that is, right or wrong, how I rationalise it in my head. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 05:33:51 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Fiora:
So anyone want to define Fine Arts for me?
I am rather uneducated when it comes to this sort of thing. Looking through the challenge entries, it appears the blurrier the better, but I am sure that if I were to submit merely a blurry picture that it would be slaughtered.
Care to enlighten me. For something to be "fine art" what does it need to accomplish? |
Ignorant, I am, on the subject of Fine Art. But, I am not oblivious to the existence (and importance) of the phenomenon. Mostly, I capture the technically accurate landscape, wildlife and nature images.... avoiding the impressionism thing, by design. On occasion, I'll capture a non traditional (for me) image which has appeal and interest to someone for reasons beyond the technical and "realism" aspects originally intended. A man came into the gallery and happened to see one of my throw away images.  It appealed to him, because it conjured up memories and visions of something in his human experience. I disliked the image. He bought a framed print. I like the image more now. This was a wake up call to me. There's a solid market for Fine Art and I need to transcend my style to find the images which "flow in the ether". You know.... like a resonating musical melody... which you have always known, but have never heard before.
Message edited by author 2011-03-03 05:36:48. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:06:41 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
A man came into the gallery and happened to see one of my throw away images. It appealed to him, because it conjured up memories and visions of something in his human experience. I disliked the image. He bought a framed print. I like the image more now. This was a wake up call to me. There's a solid market for Fine Art and I need to transcend my style to find the images which "flow in the ether". You know.... like a resonating musical melody... which you have always known, but have never heard before. |
IMO, That's one of your better, and certainly one of your more evocative, images I have seen :-) Sometimes it takes others to help us recognize the true worth of what we've accomplished. Or something like that :-)
R. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:53:27 PM · #58 |
| What Bear said - very much "something like that." We all see differently; corroboration can help, unless it promotes mass hysteria. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 12:54:28 PM · #59 |
| I would absolutely love to bomb in this challenge. |
|
|
|
03/03/2011 02:47:53 PM · #60 |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 09:01:43 AM · #61 |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 10:03:18 AM · #62 |
| A fantastic collection of photographers for the jury. Looking forward to it. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 10:57:51 AM · #63 |
| Oh, bugger! Just noticed this. Should have already got the lensbaby! Maybe I can rent it.. In Whistler? Very unlikely. I'll try something else then :) |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 11:15:13 AM · #64 |
I think Paul ( paulbtlw) gave a very good explanation of fine art photography. There certainly aren't any specific "characteristics" images that make them fine art photographs.
Another way to learn about what is accepted as fine art photography is to look at what is shown in art museums, sold by auction houses as art, and published in magazines like Aperture and Lenswork.
The challenge details for the first Fine Art challenge said "Make a contribution to Modern or Contemporary Art with a relevant photograph." At the time I said:
Originally posted by wheeledd:
We have reached the point where photographic images are fully accepted as contemporary art. At places like the Musueum of Contempory Art in Chicago, P.S.1 in New York, and the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati, it is not unusual to see photographic images among the paintings and sculptures. Sotheby's and Christie's now include photographic images in their contemporary art auctions with works by Richard Prince, Cindy Sherman, Thomas Struth, and Andreas Gursky selling for over a million dollars. These are the photos that have clearly made a contribution to contemporary art. |
I'd say that if a photographic print sells as a work of art for over $10,000, its definitely a fine art photograph. Of course, if I could do works like that, I certainly would not be spending my time on DPC!
~~Dan
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
For me its about human involvement, a somewhat clinical, perfect rendition of a pretty scene may transport me to that place and wow me with its crisp technicals but would, in regard to aspiring to create something with a label of 'art', fall short.
That human involvement would perhaps manifest itself in a way of viewing (the scene and the final image) that indicates some choices have been made by the photographer and that those choices emphasise human involvement rather than trying to place a distance between the image and the photographer. An image that embraces the subjective and shuns the objective.
There are all sorts of ways to do that - deeply emotive subject matter, low fidelity techniques that force the viewer (and photographer) to interpolate and extrapolate beyond what is present in the pixels of the image, or articulation with a pre-existing (socially constructed) body of work - not meant to work as a stand-alone piece but rather to be fully appreciated through the way in which it resonates with, complements, mocks, references (etc) other works.
The upshot of all that is, I think, that if you feel you haven't made any choices in relation to the image (choosing to not choose and allow an image to emerge spontaneously is still a creative choice) that would enhance the 'made by a human being' or even 'made by this unique human being' status of the image, then you have probably fallen short.
Having said all of that, I have no expertise in this area and this is just as likely to be complete bollocks ;-)
But that is, right or wrong, how I rationalise it in my head. |
|
|
|
|
03/04/2011 11:20:54 AM · #65 |
| I'd like to play too :-) This one sounds fun! |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 11:33:33 AM · #66 |
A superb collection of judges Robert; every one a photographer that I admire and a judge whose opinions I respect. Can't wait!
Message edited by author 2011-03-04 11:41:12. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 11:48:33 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by wheeledd:
I'd say that if a photographic print sells as a work of art for over $10,000, its definitely a fine art photograph. Of course, if I could do works like that, I certainly would not be spending my time on DPC! ~~Dan |
I think putting a price tag on somebody's work does not turn into art. Many well known painters (see Van Gogh) were not considered good artists in their lifetime. The view of what constitutes great art constantly changes. I assume this applies to photography too. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 12:23:24 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by marnet:
Oh, bugger! Just noticed this. Should have already got the lensbaby! Maybe I can rent it.. In Whistler? Very unlikely. I'll try something else then :) |
The challenge is just "proposed", it hasn't been scheduled yet. We're just getting a jury ready (like last time) for when it DOES hit the starting blocks. We have no idea when that might be.
R. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 01:43:19 PM · #69 |
| My advice is to make a picture that you love, but not for a reason specific only to you. For example, if you love a picture because it's a picture of your dog, that doesn't mean I will love it, too. But if you take a picture of somebody else's dog, and you still love it, then you've got a shot. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 02:10:56 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
My advice is to make a picture that you love, but not for a reason specific only to you. For example, if you love a picture because it's a picture of your dog, that doesn't mean I will love it, too. But if you take a picture of somebody else's dog, and you still love it, then you've got a shot. |
That is good advice! |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 02:15:53 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
My advice is to make a picture that you love, but not for a reason specific only to you. For example, if you love a picture because it's a picture of your dog, that doesn't mean I will love it, too. But if you take a picture of somebody else's dog, and you still love it, then you've got a shot. |
Can I take a picture of your dog? |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 02:28:05 PM · #72 |
A talented group of f'artists in the jury... it will be a great challenge!
|
|
|
|
03/04/2011 03:33:20 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
A talented group of f'artists in the jury... it will be a great challenge! |
I hesitate to ask what a fartist is? |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 03:39:29 PM · #74 |
H'm, I like you all, but I hate juries. What's wrong with the voters? (no reply needed :) ) |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 03:43:33 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by hajeka:
H'm, I like you all, but I hate juries. What's wrong with the voters? (no reply needed :) ) |
The challenge will be voted on as usual. The jury results are posted separately in a thread. |
|
