| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/01/2011 02:24:19 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by mcaldo:
use the title to indicate whether they want comments/criticism or not. |
yes, that will get you 15 comments telling you how bad your title is.
hahahaha |
That was what I was gonna say :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:27:35 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by mcaldo:
I have dropped here and there the suggestion that perhaps people should do as you just suggested, and use the title to indicate whether they want comments/criticism or not. |
I tried it once and it did result in a heavier than usual amount of comments. The problem was I was the only one who did it, after a forum discussion where a number of folks agreed: "let's do it!".
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:31:55 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by mcaldo:
I have dropped here and there the suggestion that perhaps people should do as you just suggested, and use the title to indicate whether they want comments/criticism or not. |
I tried it once and it did result in a heavier than usual amount of comments. The problem was I was the only one who did it, after a forum discussion where a number of folks agreed: "let's do it!".
|
Those were the days!!! Remember when we all said we'd flip off the cop at the same time? |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:37:44 PM · #29 |
| thick skinned / thin skinned check box haha |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:44:57 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by mcaldo:
use the title to indicate whether they want comments/criticism or not. |
yes, that will get you 15 comments telling you how bad your title is.
hahahaha |
Hehehhe, that's quite likely, really :D |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:51:08 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I tried it once and it did result in a heavier than usual amount of comments. The problem was I was the only one who did it, after a forum discussion where a number of folks agreed: "let's do it!".
|
Hemmm.. yes, that's kind of a risk :)
Thanks for mentioning about the past thread, I thought about posting a suggestion in the forum but also suspected the idea might have been tried already. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:51:10 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Remember when we all said we'd flip off the cop at the same time? |
And I was the only one who spent the night in jail. You didn't even take up a collection to cover my bail.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:56:00 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
|
Woah, 2 years ago :)
Loads of comments though, it worked all right, and nice image by the way (perhaps I should comment there and make a favorite of it:) |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:56:34 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Remember when we all said we'd flip off the cop at the same time? |
And I was the only one who spent the night in jail. You didn't even take up a collection to cover my bail. |
I did... but then I had to pay for the next round. We did toast you, though. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 03:00:12 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by ubique:
My personal criteria give almost no weight to overtly skilful photography, because to me that̢۪s rarely very relevant to the appeal of a picture. I̢۪m not saying that I vote skilful photography (including its post-processing) down, but if that̢۪s all that a picture has to offer then to me it̢۪s a picture of no interest. |
I share this view, and I want to add, or possibly clarify to those who think you are making a genre specific generalization, that the vision to see, capture, and/or create a scene, regardless of genre, is a skill. It's this vision that has the potential to elevate a photograph beyond the tack sharp, noisless, and perfectly processed images that is otherwise bland. This also holds true for grainy, blurry, and other typically repulsive to the masses methods. A bland photograph is a bland photograph.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:37:39 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I share this view, and I want to add, or possibly clarify to those who think you are making a genre specific generalization, that the vision to see, capture, and/or create a scene, regardless of genre, is a skill. It's this vision that has the potential to elevate a photograph beyond the tack sharp, noisless, and perfectly processed images that is otherwise bland. This also holds true for grainy, blurry, and other typically repulsive to the masses methods. A bland photograph is a bland photograph. |
+1
I can only agree.
However, I feel like sometimes a shiny postprocessing could be the last resort for a photographer who saw a potential in a scene but failed to capture it (ok, I am talking out of my frustrated experience). That point, many (ok, me again) may value criticism and advice on how the bland result could have been turned into something more meaningful.
To be clear, this is not an invitation to anybody to comment more than they feel like, certaninly not to you, Ben. Just a thought I had reading your comment. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 06:18:57 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by ubique:
My personal criteria give almost no weight to overtly skilful photography, because to me that̢۪s rarely very relevant to the appeal of a picture. I̢۪m not saying that I vote skilful photography (including its post-processing) down, but if that̢۪s all that a picture has to offer then to me it̢۪s a picture of no interest. |
I share this view, and I want to add, or possibly clarify to those who think you are making a genre specific generalization, that the vision to see, capture, and/or create a scene, regardless of genre, is a skill. It's this vision that has the potential to elevate a photograph beyond the tack sharp, noisless, and perfectly processed images that is otherwise bland. This also holds true for grainy, blurry, and other typically repulsive to the masses methods. A bland photograph is a bland photograph. |
I would partially disagree, however. I think skill is very relevant. Why is photography different from other art forms? Take music, for example. Whatever deep vision a musician has, if he does not have technical skill to properly communicate it (whether through composing or performing), the result will be mediocre. Same with writing. I believe that the same is with painting, although some contemporary art aficionados may disagree. And the same with photography - the idea may be deep and exciting, but poorly executed photo is a poorly executed photo. And of course a well-executed photo not have to be tack sharp, noiseless and conform to the infamous rule of thirds :). Certain themes call for blur, grain, under- or over-exposure, or unconventional framing. But I like to feel it is a conscious decision of the author, and that it fits the theme. Not making a random snapshot and calling it high art just because it is blurry and noisy.
eta: I should add that what I DO agree with Paul and Ben about, is that skill by itself with no substance does not make an interesting photo for me, either.
Message edited by author 2011-12-01 18:23:00. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 07:18:54 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by LevT:
eta: I should add that what I DO agree with Paul and Ben about, is that skill by itself with no substance does not make an interesting photo for me, either. |
Concur, however when a person says that they rarely find any of their favorite images for a challenge in the top scoring half of a challenge, then I say they have taken a stand based on an aestetic rather than on the basis of skill or substance.
In college I was, from time to time, forced to give up listening to a favorite band when they became too popular and "sold out". Looking back, some did change their sound, but more often the only shift was in my perception of the band as no longer being far enough out of the mainstream to be listenable. Today I am so far past being cool I can't even see it from here, so I try to listen to everything, and I find that the stuff in the top 40's is just about as likely to be good as the music of some random undiscovered alt band, in other words, some wheat and a lot of chaff. But popularity is no longer a reason I like or dislike a song.
To my mind there are great images that are recognized, and some that are missed in the voting, but if all, or none, of my top 20 of a given challenge were in the top 40 vote-getters, I would know that I was being influenced one way or another by popularity. And being always outside of the herd, or always being inside the herd, you are still governed by the herd mentality. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 10:08:30 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by LevT:
Certain themes call for blur, grain, under- or over-exposure, or unconventional framing. |
precisely so. form=content. have the focus that the picture needs. have the exposure that the picture needs. this is skill.
Originally posted by LevT:
But I like to feel it is a conscious decision of the author, and that it fits the theme. |
art is almost never entirely conscious. the conscious mind is severely limited. in fact, the main reason to develop skill is so that you can do certain things unconsciously. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 11:25:51 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by LevT:
eta: I should add that what I DO agree with Paul and Ben about, is that skill by itself with no substance does not make an interesting photo for me, either. |
Concur, however when a person says that they rarely find any of their favorite images for a challenge in the top scoring half of a challenge, then I say they have taken a stand based on an aestetic rather than on the basis of skill or substance.
(snip)
To my mind there are great images that are recognized, and some that are missed in the voting, but if all, or none, of my top 20 of a given challenge were in the top 40 vote-getters, I would know that I was being influenced one way or another by popularity. And being always outside of the herd, or always being inside the herd, you are still governed by the herd mentality. |
I wonder if 'aestetic' was a typo, Brennan? Reason I ask is that if you intended 'aesthetic' I'd be OK with that. But if it was 'ascetic' (rigorous self-denial) that you'd intended, I'd have to re-evaluate myself.
In appreciating photographs, I do take a stand based on an aesthetic (love of beauty) rather than on the basis of demonstrated technical virtuosity ('skill'). I don't apologise for that. Lots of great art, music, literature manages to be so in spite of (sometimes because of) the author's apparent lack of conventional technical mastery, though that's often likely to be a calculated, illusory naivete! Picasso's drawings come to mind. But I'd blanch at your idea that an aesthetic also excludes substance as well as skill.
However, your last paragraph suggests that maybe 'ascetic' might have been intended after all. If it was, I'd squirm a bit and then concede that you could have a point: it may be that I have a tendency to dismiss that which I expect to be popular. My only defence to that would be to say that I prefer to find my artistic satisfaction on the fringes of convention because I'm most stimulated by the original, the adventurous and the downright weird. But it's not a categorical ascetic stand: I picked the blue ribbon in the recent Defining Feature challenge in my personal top ten. Because it was beautiful. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 11:59:06 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I wonder if 'aestetic' was a typo, Brennan? Reason I ask is that if you intended 'aesthetic' I'd be OK with that. But if it was 'ascetic' (rigorous self-denial) that you'd intended, I'd have to re-evaluate myself. |
I just cant find the æ key without the cut and paste bane of my life. Your stuff is too lush for me to call you an ascetic. The quest for beauty is a worthy goal. But while I sometimes struggle to find it in blur and noise, others struggle to find it in the hyper-sharp and over saturated. As long as we keep looking, we know we are alive. |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 03:31:11 AM · #42 |
.
Message edited by author 2011-12-02 03:48:25. |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 03:47:28 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Lots of great art, music, literature manages to be so in spite of (sometimes because of) the author's apparent lack of conventional technical mastery, though that's often likely to be a calculated, illusory naivete! |
this is a skill. 'calculated' is the key word here. To take your Picasso example, anybody who has seen his early stuff, knows what an amazingly skillful and disciplined drawer and painter he was.
Originally posted by posthumous:
art is almost never entirely conscious. the conscious mind is severely limited. in fact, the main reason to develop skill is so that you can do certain things unconsciously. |
it is very true that art is never entirely conscious, but I do believe that while key creative impulses emanate from the unconscious, they trigger mostly conscious artistic process in which technical skills play a major role.
Photography (especially street photography, if you agree that it is an art form) is an interesting special case, because the photographer does not have full control over his "artwork", he is to a large degree at the mercy of chance, moreover, random stuff within the frame almost invariably makes the photo more engaging. Still, photographer's ability to see, anticipate, and capture the "decisive moment" in the strongest way is an acquired technical skill. |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 04:11:07 AM · #44 |
 LevTPhotography (especially street photography, if you agree that it is an art form) is an interesting special case, because the photographer does not have full control over his "artwork", he is to a large degree at the mercy of chance, moreover, random stuff within the frame almost invariably makes the photo more engaging. Still, photographer's ability to see, anticipate, and capture the "decisive moment" in the strongest way is an acquired technical skill. [/quote]
How true how true, Through this site I've really come to LOVE Street photography, because it's the essence of real life. I've also realised how feign a studio shot can be, I'd much rather prefer a candid shot 100 times over, that's not to say I don't appreciate a studio shot it's just not what I'm all about, to me the more natural the better. I'd much rather a shot be taken in natural light, than a strobe, prefer black and white to colour, natural skin tones to using smart blur, a flower shot to be taken in the garden rather than a studio ( Hey thats where they grow can't they stay there.......But thats just me, we are all different!
By the way ubique I have to commend you on probably the most insightful comment anyone has ever given me, truly they sent shivers up my spine. Sometimes a truly remarkable comment, can change my direction entirely, I think it did with one of the comments you gave me, I think you know the one, after that, I stopped caring so much for votes.
You changed me MAN - I hope I will stay that way......THANKYOU!
Oh yes I nearly forgot to say, an overly processed photo nearly aways gets 4 or below from me.
Message edited by author 2011-12-02 05:11:35. |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 06:48:51 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't think that necessarily follows. Sometimes we need someone to open our eyes, to show us what we had not noticed before. The history of art, indeed, is full of this kind of stuff. Nobody goes it entirely alone, nor should they even aspire to. R. |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Puppy Bear, I'm not addressing going "entirely alone." I'm just wondering about the difference between a mentor who helps to bring out another person's vision rather than imposing their own stamp and also about the internalization effect of a mentor upon another person's vision? |
Robert hit the nail on the head here.....Whereas what he and Sean did for me in the way of tangible help, knowledge, encouragement, and no little amount of patience, was very much what I needed, and was looking for at the time. What Don and Paul have done for me was unsolicited, accidental, and totally glorious in the way that I have been exposed to their take on imagery. It seems to me that this is less of a case of bringing out my own vision as making me aware of a vision I never knew existed. I'm inherently curious, I like people, and I very much want to know what makes others' intrigued. This is a good place for that.....
|
|
|
|
12/02/2011 06:52:22 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
art is almost never entirely conscious. the conscious mind is severely limited. in fact, the main reason to develop skill is so that you can do certain things unconsciously. |
Oh, yeah!
I found that I shoot better since I have to pay less attention to how to work my camera. Just an early step, but I have hope......8~)
|
|
|
|
12/02/2011 10:25:27 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Robert hit the nail on the head here.....Whereas what he and Sean did for me in the way of tangible help, knowledge, encouragement, and no little amount of patience, was very much what I needed, and was looking for at the time. What Don and Paul have done for me was unsolicited, accidental, and totally glorious in the way that I have been exposed to their take on imagery. It seems to me that this is less of a case of bringing out my own vision as making me aware of a vision I never knew existed. I'm inherently curious, I like people, and I very much want to know what makes others' intrigued. This is a good place for that..... |
Well, I guess I owe Posthumous a thank you for understanding my point even when I paused to question yours. ;-)
But, please segregate Puppy Bear's comment about aspiring to go it alone from my original question. Obviously, my poor communications skills are lacking if that assumption was derived and subesequently anchored to my thought.
Message edited by author 2011-12-02 10:31:15. |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 10:39:40 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
But, please segregate Puppy Bear's comment about aspiring to go it alone from my original question. Obviously, my poor communications skills are lacking if that assumption was derived and subesequently anchored to my thought. |
I didn't mean to say that I understood your comment as suggesting that "real artists go it alone" or anything like that. It was just a corollary, as it were. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2011 11:02:18 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by LevT:
Originally posted by ubique:
Lots of great art, music, literature manages to be so in spite of (sometimes because of) the author's apparent lack of conventional technical mastery, though that's often likely to be a calculated, illusory naivete! |
this is a skill. 'calculated' is the key word here. To take your Picasso example, anybody who has seen his early stuff, knows what an amazingly skillful and disciplined drawer and painter he was.
|
Good point Lev. Someone (could have been you) said once that one must first know and master a thing in order to then choose to neglect it. My particular love is drawings, especially 'loose' drawings. And even the most willfully negligent and abandoned of drawings – the kind that attracts those 'my 3-year-old could do better than that' reactions – is actually nothing more than a consummate level of skill wielded with breathtaking economy.
However (and I'm not sure about this example but Don will know) someone like Jackson Pollock very likely could not draw or paint a convincing horse nor do a formal family portrait that the family would care to hang. He'd surely fail most people's Art Skills 101. And yet he created the most sublimely beautiful things, things that we had never seen before and surely will never tire of seeing. But he wasn't neglecting Art Skills 101 because he'd paid his dues painting calendar scenes and family groups, and could now move on to doing 'looser' things: that conventional view of basic skills is simply irrelevant to his work. Might even be counter-productive.
Having said that, your observation about standing on the shoulders of a sound technical ability is going to be correct far more than it ain't. |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 12:20:28 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I didn't mean to say that I understood your comment as suggesting that "real artists go it alone" or anything like that. It was just a corollary, as it were. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
R. |
Puppy Bear, you'll be happy to know that the only thing I'm patronizing this morning is a large cup of home roasted coffee...;-) May I pour you a cup? *hugs*
-M |
|
