| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/01/2011 12:02:01 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 12:10:10 PM · #2 |
Saw that a few weeks back. Quite funny, but the criticisms are also accurate. If that photo was taken today it would probably never become the classic it now is. Is it a great photograph only because it was shot by a famous photographer?
|
|
|
|
08/01/2011 12:38:21 PM · #3 |
| I have a friend who owns a gallery here in Miami, he works in photography, and despite his success, I'm pretty certain that his work is simply awful. *shrug* puzzling. |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 12:52:05 PM · #4 |
LOL. This is like the Cindy Sherman thread all over again. Did you guys even bother reading any of the explanations posted last time? If a famous photographer today (pick any) were to recreate the photo exactly as HCB's it still wouldn't hold the same value.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2011 01:00:24 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by yanko:
If a famous photographer today (pick any) were to recreate the photo exactly as HCB's it still wouldn't hold the same value. |
So it's only a great photograph because it was taken by a great photographer.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2011 01:05:16 PM · #6 |
Everybody is different i guess but for me the obvious quality of that photo jumps off the page but i'm sure HCB would have found the price it sold for both silly and shocking.
i know for a fact that most of the stuff in galleries and in expositions over here wouldn't stand a chance in the DeleteMe group and probably wouldn't win any ribbons here either, that doesn't mean i like it any less.
The perfect and shiny will always do well in our quick fix and shallow society because that is how we would like everything to be, but it can't and never will be. |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 01:12:40 PM · #7 |
it's an endless argument because both sides are true:
yes, people foolishly love everything done by a big name.
yes, arbiters of taste will foolishly denounce great art because it defies their expectations. |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 01:13:01 PM · #8 |
I thought this comment on the post was very thought-provoking:
"I run projects with kids as young as 8 years, the sessions lasting as little as 3 hours. They invariably produce stunning images which grasp the attention of the viewers. Technically the images have numerous problems. When I visit camera club exhibitions the technical expertise is usually exquisite, but the images are almost invariably tired cliches which totally fail to seize the attention. For me an image works or not on the strength of its composition, its dynamics, its originality and its honesty. For me the above image works and I am more than happy to overlook a few technical foibles." |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 01:16:47 PM · #9 |
| I think it's a great photo by the way. I love how the curb, railing, and wall all meet at one exact point on the right edge of the frame. |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 01:18:15 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by piraino:
I thought this comment on the post was very thought-provoking:
"I run projects with kids as young as 8 years, the sessions lasting as little as 3 hours. They invariably produce stunning images which grasp the attention of the viewers. Technically the images have numerous problems. When I visit camera club exhibitions the technical expertise is usually exquisite, but the images are almost invariably tired cliches which totally fail to seize the attention. For me an image works or not on the strength of its composition, its dynamics, its originality and its honesty. For me the above image works and I am more than happy to overlook a few technical foibles." |
amen. |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 01:27:14 PM · #11 |
I've discovered that the more famous I get, the more people like the crap I put out :)
|
|
|
|
08/01/2011 02:15:09 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by yanko:
If a famous photographer today (pick any) were to recreate the photo exactly as HCB's it still wouldn't hold the same value. |
So it's only a great photograph because it was taken by a great photographer. |
No, I didn't say that. For something to be great it needs to stand the test of time, first and foremost. HCB's photograph as well as his body work does just that. He was also a trailblazer, a pioneer in his field. He was the first doing this kind of work that you now take for granted. You may not like it personally, but there's no getting around the fact that his work was original and authentic in every aspect. This is a concept that seems to be lost in today's world, especially now that things have been made a lot easier. Being able to copy someone else's style or work doesn't make it as good as the original. The artistic value comes from the creation itself, not the duplication. The former is much harder than the latter and that more than anything else affects its value.
Ask yourself this, would you rather pay money to go see a concert or spend that money to watch your friend sing the same songs with karaoke machine?
Message edited by author 2011-08-01 14:16:42.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2011 02:26:52 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Being able to copy someone else's style or work doesn't make it as good as the original. The artistic value comes from the creation itself, not the duplication. The former is much harder than the latter and that more than anything else affects its value. |
Actually, I agree with you. I was just making a point. We reward certain things on DPC. For instance, I have 3 shots in voting now. Two cliche shots, that are both at a 6+, and one that I think is a little different which is getting a lot of "meh" votes. This encourages me to do more of what the Borg DPC collective considers to be good photography, rather than what excites me personally.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2011 02:37:32 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Actually, I agree with you. I was just making a point. We reward certain things on DPC. For instance, I have 3 shots in voting now. Two cliche shots, that are both at a 6+, and one that I think is a little different which is getting a lot of "meh" votes. This encourages me to do more of what the Borg DPC collective considers to be good photography, rather than what excites me personally. |
I've always been fortunate in that when I attempt boring cliche shots I still get low scores. Therefore, artistic integrity comes easily to me. LOL |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 02:46:04 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Actually, I agree with you. I was just making a point. We reward certain things on DPC. For instance, I have 3 shots in voting now. Two cliche shots, that are both at a 6+, and one that I think is a little different which is getting a lot of "meh" votes. This encourages me to do more of what the Borg DPC collective considers to be good photography, rather than what excites me personally. |
To be unique...you'll have to become...The Borg Queen...;-) |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 03:00:53 PM · #16 |
| This sort of stuff happens a lot on the internet where the instantaneous nature of a critique can override the spending more than a few seconds on a photo. I used to frequent a couple of online writing forums to which you posted short stories and much the same happened. Someone did the same as this on one-posted up a relatively famous story, i forget who it was by, and it got shot to bits of course. I posted up one short story and i had about 20 critiques of 'Doesn't make sense-terrible grammar-an editor wouldn't get past the poor grammar of the first paragraph before throwing it in the bin-etc' before i had one that liked it and commented on 'unreliable narrators' and clockwork orange and such. Which was kind of the point of the story. Despite the one good critique (and it was good-there was much he didn't like but offered suggestions) i didn't bother to stick around (not that i have perfect grammar anyway-it's pretty bad but i know the distinction when writing it!). I found far more worth in doing a few face to face creative writing classes where people seemed to have actually read some books. I've found that some camera clubs can be like this; sharp, sharp sharp is the mantra! (along with all the cliches that go with it) |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 03:06:47 PM · #17 |
But then, what do i know? My favourite art is that produced by Michael and Koko
Message edited by author 2011-08-01 15:07:26. |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 03:15:11 PM · #18 |
| It is the internet. Anything and everything from books, movies, TV shows, and art will have some sort of negative or positive critique on them. Just go to amazon.com or IMDB and read the reviews. |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 03:17:16 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by yanko:
Being able to copy someone else's style or work doesn't make it as good as the original. The artistic value comes from the creation itself, not the duplication. The former is much harder than the latter and that more than anything else affects its value. |
Actually, I agree with you. I was just making a point. We reward certain things on DPC. For instance, I have 3 shots in voting now. Two cliche shots, that are both at a 6+, and one that I think is a little different which is getting a lot of "meh" votes. This encourages me to do more of what the Borg DPC collective considers to be good photography, rather than what excites me personally. |
Right. It's a viscious cycle. When you have a lot of people voting who are new to photography their focus tends to be more on the technical side of things, specificially on the stuff the voter has difficulty with. For example, if you're shooting with a kit lens you're probably going to drool over anything shot with an L glass. If you're using undiffused work lamps you're probably going to go ga ga over anything shot with a softbox. Same goes for photoshop. As you grow as a photographer, and as a person, you begin to realize that substance is more important than technique. Unfortunately that takes too long to play out in any one challenge so we get what we get.
Message edited by author 2011-08-01 16:02:43.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2011 03:17:58 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by piraino:
I thought this comment on the post was very thought-provoking:
"I run projects with kids as young as 8 years, the sessions lasting as little as 3 hours. They invariably produce stunning images which grasp the attention of the viewers. Technically the images have numerous problems. When I visit camera club exhibitions the technical expertise is usually exquisite, but the images are almost invariably tired cliches which totally fail to seize the attention. For me an image works or not on the strength of its composition, its dynamics, its originality and its honesty. For me the above image works and I am more than happy to overlook a few technical foibles." |
amen. |
amen amen |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 03:36:00 PM · #21 |
| I think the point of the article is perfect. |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 03:46:03 PM · #22 |
When I was a ceramic potter there was a common practice when putting together a group sale tent that the pieces everyone thought were horrible, hideous and just awful
were priced 3x the other pieces, and usually many of them would sell.
Horrible creates a reaction, some people can not see subtle beauty, they need "Saw IX" to feel anything at all. So real bad art at least makes an impact,
and if it is expensive, well, it just has to be good! People tend to be less impressed with a vase you bought for five bucks vs one that you paid 100k for.
Same vase, different back story. Like Cosmo Kramer said once: "You don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle!" Sadly I think he was very correct. I, however, buy the steak.
Being dead also really increases your creations value, nothing like death to spike your worth. Its something we can all aspire to... |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 04:00:14 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
This sort of stuff happens a lot on the internet where the instantaneous nature of a critique can override the spending more than a few seconds on a photo. I used to frequent a couple of online writing forums to which you posted short stories and much the same happened. Someone did the same as this on one-posted up a relatively famous story, i forget who it was by, and it got shot to bits of course. I posted up one short story and i had about 20 critiques of 'Doesn't make sense-terrible grammar-an editor wouldn't get past the poor grammar of the first paragraph before throwing it in the bin-etc' before i had one that liked it and commented on 'unreliable narrators' and clockwork orange and such. Which was kind of the point of the story. Despite the one good critique (and it was good-there was much he didn't like but offered suggestions) i didn't bother to stick around (not that i have perfect grammar anyway-it's pretty bad but i know the distinction when writing it!). I found far more worth in doing a few face to face creative writing classes where people seemed to have actually read some books. I've found that some camera clubs can be like this; sharp, sharp sharp is the mantra! (along with all the cliches that go with it) |
To uniquely connect successfully with a broad spectrum of critical reviewers takes courage along with the self-discipline to avoid diluting your own inner vision within the process as well...just to please the collective. Transmuting an individually creative process into a successfully shared viewing experience for the community almost becomes an art within itself somehow.
Message edited by author 2011-08-01 18:48:32. |
|
|
|
08/01/2011 04:14:00 PM · #24 |
I'm going keep checking back on this thread to remind myself all this stuff as you all keep telling me with your votes how mediocre my FS entry is. ;-}
(As if I'm not not giving my share of low votes to artistic efforts that I just don't care for.)
|
|
|
|
08/01/2011 04:21:37 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Like Cosmo Kramer said once: "You don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle!" Sadly I think he was very correct. I, however, buy the steak. |
That famous quote was written my Elmer Wheeler, the father of the up-sell, over 70 years ago. His book "tested sentences that sell" is a fascination read, mostly to see how little marketing manipulation has changed in 70 years.
My favorite quote on the subject is from even further back. Oscar Wilde said "What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
It is easy to dismiss any early photography because the cameras were not as sharp or fast, in the same way it is easy to dismiss any music recorded before digital recording was invented, because there are flaws inherent in the recording process. But if that is the reason to dismiss Cartier-Bresson or Robert Johnson, then your interest is not in art, but in technical reproduction. |
|
