|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2013 12:06:27 AM · #26 |
| Sorry if I helped derail the thread, I was basically lashing out at the same thing bear is but in my typical fashion I added a dumb joke. I too was disappointed that it became a thread about the "unanswerable question" |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 12:13:55 AM · #27 |
Sure. Go right ahead with your mutual appreciation of blurry snapshot contrivers society.
I'll back quietly into the corner, just like always when this type of debate comes up. I'll let you all appreciate it without my simple minded inability to comprehend clouding the conversation. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 12:15:52 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by pamb:
Originally posted by ubique:
Real art, or at least real contemporary art, does nothing if it's not confrontational in some way. It need not shock, but it ought to at least challenge something; ought to make the viewer feel uncomfortable, uncertain and disorientated. It ought to dare to explore beyond the comfortable boundaries of expectation. |
Why? Why does Real Art have to be confrontational? Why does it need to challenge something? Why ought it make the viewer feel uncomfortable, uncertain and disorientated? Why? |
Please, can we have this argument in a different thread? Can we devote THIS thread to exploring the nuances of the snapshotters and the contrivers for what they are, without worrying about all the OTHER kinds of art for once? Thanks :-) |
Would you care to answer in this thread :) |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 12:52:03 AM · #29 |
| I find it interesting that the snappers start contributing to this forum before the contrivers. Just an observation.... carry on. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 12:58:47 AM · #30 |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 01:06:27 AM · #31 |
Frankly, after reading through this, my only real thought is that I agree with Pamb - at what point does the conversation about 'art' have the effect of marginalizing the art of creating 'eyecandy'?
As has been noted, the proportion of 'art' in challenges now is much higher, and arguably the number of truly great 'eyecandy' shots is much lower.
..
Taking this a step further - I think everyone here is using the word 'art' incorrectly.
Originally posted by The Online Etymological Dictionary:
art (n.) Look up art at Dictionary.comearly 13c., "skill as a result of learning or practice," from Old French art (10c.), from Latin artem (nominative ars) "work of art; practical skill; a business, craft," from PIE *ar-ti- (cf. Sanskrit rtih "manner, mode;" Greek arti "just," artios "complete, suitable," artizein "to prepare;" Latin artus "joint;" Armenian arnam "make;" German art "manner, mode"), from root *ar- "fit together, join" (see arm (n.1)).
In Middle English usually with a sense of "skill in scholarship and learning" (c.1300), especially in the seven sciences, or liberal arts. This sense remains in Bachelor of Arts, etc. Meaning "human workmanship" (as opposed to nature) is from late 14c. Sense of "cunning and trickery" first attested c.1600. Meaning "skill in creative arts" is first recorded 1610s; especially of painting, sculpture, etc., from 1660s. Broader sense of the word remains in artless.
Fine arts, "those which appeal to the mind and the imagination" first recorded 1767. Expression art for art's sake (1824) translates French l'art pour l'art. First record of art critic is from 1847. Arts and crafts "decorative design and handcraft" first attested in the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, founded in London, 1888.
Supreme art is a traditional statement of certain heroic and religious truths, passed on from age to age, modified by individual genius, but never abandoned. The revolt of individualism came because the tradition had become degraded, or rather because a spurious copy had been accepted in its stead. [William Butler Yeats]
art (v.) Look up art at Dictionary.comsecond person present indicative of be; Old English eart. Also see are (v.).art (adj.) Look up art at Dictionary.com"produced with conscious artistry," as opposed to popular or folk, 1890, from art (n.), possibly from influence of German kunstlied "art song" (cf. art film, 1960; art rock, 1968).
|
To my eyes, nothing in the origin or meaning of the word art implies 'spontaneous' or 'improvisational' or 'unrefined' or 'incomplete' or etc...
Why then, do we continue to accept that there is a large group here who defines art incorrectly in this way? Is there any chance you guys might not misappropriate the word 'art' for your purposes? Just curious, since I have more love for language than I do for this sort of 'art'.. (not that I don't love the spontaneous and unrefined, I just don't believe that we are serving ourselves very well by continuing to refer to such work as being 'art', and especially not by referring to it as 'true art'...
..
Perhaps this is OT, but it's damned sure where my mind went while reading this. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 01:21:22 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by insteps:
I find it interesting that the snappers start contributing to this forum before the contrivers. Just an observation.... carry on. |
I just got back in...been out taking pictures in that big beautiful full moon.
...Don, thanks for this...Deb and Johanna, love you gals too. Pennystreet, we should hang out sometime...we should all hang out sometime. We can all learn from each other...how fun would that be?
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 01:43:12 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by RKT:
Originally posted by insteps:
I find it interesting that the snappers start contributing to this forum before the contrivers. Just an observation.... carry on. |
I just got back in...been out taking pictures in that big beautiful full moon.
...Don, thanks for this...Deb and Johanna, love you gals too. Pennystreet, we should hang out sometime...we should all hang out sometime. We can all learn from each other...how fun would that be? |
Road trip!! |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 01:44:52 AM · #34 |
| thank you Don for conceiving of these distinctions, and for posting the examples which I have enjoyed restudying and sometimes re-commenting upon. and I am honoured to be included. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 06:52:52 AM · #35 |
| Thanks Don, always dedicated, never afraid to push the big red button. If someone did ever manage to define art then 90 percent of us would be out of here. Art is what we do because we never, thankfully, know what it is. And while we only really argue definitions, art breathes its own. Return trip to the States would be a lovely Xmas present ;) |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 07:05:06 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by insteps:
I find it interesting that the snappers start contributing to this forum before the contrivers. Just an observation.... carry on. |
Of course, of course - as being one of the cited contrivers I can tell that we might have been slowly devising, improvising, plotting or plain sleeping while you were discussing ART.
Now that Don so aptly tried to make some sense of the chaos, I can understand a little of what I am doing in photography and I deeply appreciate when someone with a larger view can put into words what is mostly undefinable. It takes intelligence and guts 'cause we know that once a word spurts into the world it becomes a target.
Books have being published on "thinking fast and slow" to paraphrase the title of one of them, on the way the mind works ("System 1: operates automatically and quickly. with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control" - must be the way of looking at impressionism or "System 2: allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. Its operations are often associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration" - must be what some people call here a thing that does not necessarily shock, but challenges something.
This forum discussion prompted me to look at the collection of my favorite images in my profile (and I realized with dismay that I am not always good at pushing the favorite button probably because I have so many photographs and photographers here that I admire a lot).
One of the masters of snapping that was not yet mentioned (and it's impossible to mention all of them) is undoubtedly  jagar but we might ignore him because he lives in such an endearing place - well, not so fast, he shoots in GB with aplomb and local color is splendidly captured. And he is one of the few, if not the only one, who is well loved across the board. And he seems to hate this. I absolutely understand him.
Than there is  ammie in her vast corner of the world where she finds the ancient geometry of the world carved in her field of dried harvest.
There is neat walking on a high line without a net and tilting her balance between snapping and fussing forever over little details or  Bear_Music weaving the intricacies of his world.
Or ursula trying forever to reduce all to the original formless but colorful state.
There is not so much talk about  gsal with his amazing portraits or LevT but snappers or not they probably do not belong to this discussion.
I am not trying here to name my favorites but to point out that there are all these ways of thinking and evaluating and we all try to build something, be it a house of straw or bricks.
It's impossible to come up with a common denominator but we are here to do exactly what we are doing: discussing when we take a break and leave the camera to rest a little. Let's discuss until we are blue in the face and let's not be too quickly pleased with what we do or what we think now. Let's try to grow a bit more and not bite the moment our feathers get ruffled by a mere breeze.
And a last little comment to Cory's remark: "To my eyes, nothing in the origin or meaning of the word art implies 'spontaneous' or 'improvisational' or 'unrefined' or 'incomplete' or etc... - [i]let's not forget that there are croquis and amazing painters that use the technique called "a la prima" and watercolors .... Since we all struggle with the word ART let's use it the best of our understanding for now and not put limits to it. When one looks at a work of art the steps to make it shall not be counted.
Lastly, I appologize for the long rant but have to cite Blaise Pascal here:
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
edit: corrected the quotation italics in the Cory paragraph
Message edited by author 2013-12-17 09:55:53. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 07:17:25 AM · #37 |
Isn't Pamb's question Confrontational,challenging,& uncomfortable?
Why run? |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 07:37:09 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
And a last little comment to Cory's remark: "To my eyes, nothing in the origin or meaning of the word art implies 'spontaneous' or 'improvisational' or 'unrefined' or 'incomplete' or etc... " - let's not forget that there are croquis and amazing painters that use the technique called "a la prima" and watercolors .... Since we all struggle with the word ART let's use it the best of our understanding for now and not put limits to it. When one looks at a work of art the steps to make it shall not be counted. |
I guess where I become confused, and maybe my thinking is stunted, but why go to the expense, and to what seems to me counter to what a camera in this day and age can do, to intentionally limit the incredible capturing and rendering of these digital cameras we use if not to extract the highest quality of the image?
If you want the textures, color shifts, and fluid melds of the painting art form, why not paint?
I do have to say that having been around here for a few days, I do have much more of an appreciation for what some of you view as the art form with your alternative styles, but to constantly denigrate what cameras have been striving for for years, that of incredible detail and realism in the capture, is just fundamentally wrong.
Can't we all just get along, and admire, or not, each others efforts to express themselves in their own way? kow I learn from others who create differently than I.......perhaps those of us who go for real;ism, or our concept thereof, may have a thing or two to offer as well
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 07:38:19 AM · #39 |
I will say one thing before I go then I won't be saying anything else for awhile. While I appreciate the efforts of posthumous to put up this list. And I admire many of the artists featured. Why are there no artist like Gyban, lydiatoo, njabs, judi mentioned? I would say these are great artist and contrivers.
Everyone jumps on Pam for voicing a lone opinion for those of us now too afraid to do so. Sorry I don't recognize this site anymore. It used to be that all forms of photography were celebrated. Now it seems if you don't belong to the group mentioned by posthumous, you are someone to be despised mocked and laughed at. No wonder so many people are jumping ship.
Message edited by author 2013-12-17 07:39:25. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 07:56:58 AM · #40 |
I would hope that we could get this thread on track to something we could all use and appreciate. And I'd like to make a suggestion:
Could we possibly get rid of Don's 2nd line in the post: "And I don't mean pop culture or mainstream art, I mean real art."
That's where the whole problem started, and that's where we are so limiting ourselves.
Why is it a problem discussing what it art? And why is it a problem discussing perhaps what Pam, Jenn, Don, Paul, Myself, Bear, Cory, Mariuca consider art and what we consider the snappers vs the contrivers?
Are we so small minded that we need to only discuss with people with whom we agree?
I was incredibly excited to see this forum, because I have some true heros and favorites on this site in both categories. And I wanted to share who they were and why I respect them so highly. I am completely and totally sure that some would be considered pop culture or mainstream art. But why should they not be discussed along with others.
This was the first time that it seemed like we could discuss things in a complete way. Not to separate the ribbon winners -- as in a challenge. Or the funkier shots -- as in the posthumous thread.
Why not discuss everything here? Don't just give examples -- but go in depth and explain why they've made such an impression. What makes it art to you. Why do they rise above in your mind.
This is our chance to have a meaningful conversation -- and actually have it be a give and take where we can all see, watch, listen, learn. We don't have to agree. But why not have a meaningful discourse that doesn't exclude a whole section for once?
Please?
Pretty please?
Be brave! It might actually work. You may see things in a way that you've never seen them before. Or you may just be bored stiff. But why do things half way? |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 08:17:55 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I would hope that we could get this thread on track to something we could all use and appreciate. And I'd like to make a suggestion:
Could we possibly get rid of Don's 2nd line in the post: "And I don't mean pop culture or mainstream art, I mean real art."
That's where the whole problem started, and that's where we are so limiting ourselves.
Why is it a problem discussing what it art? And why is it a problem discussing perhaps what Pam, Jenn, Don, Paul, Myself, Bear, Cory, Mariuca consider art and what we consider the snappers vs the contrivers?
Are we so small minded that we need to only discuss with people with whom we agree?
I was incredibly excited to see this forum, because I have some true heros and favorites on this site in both categories. And I wanted to share who they were and why I respect them so highly. I am completely and totally sure that some would be considered pop culture or mainstream art. But why should they not be discussed along with others.
This was the first time that it seemed like we could discuss things in a complete way. Not to separate the ribbon winners -- as in a challenge. Or the funkier shots -- as in the posthumous thread.
Why not discuss everything here? Don't just give examples -- but go in depth and explain why they've made such an impression. What makes it art to you. Why do they rise above in your mind.
This is our chance to have a meaningful conversation -- and actually have it be a give and take where we can all see, watch, listen, learn. We don't have to agree. But why not have a meaningful discourse that doesn't exclude a whole section for once?
Please?
Pretty please?
Be brave! It might actually work. You may see things in a way that you've never seen them before. Or you may just be bored stiff. But why do things half way? |
You continue to be a genuine hero, Wendy. I admire you far more than I can say. You have remained true to yourself and your personal vision, while driving yourself to look beyond every horizon. Just to see what's there, without prejudice. My deepest respect; thank you.
Message edited by author 2013-12-17 08:18:32. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 08:27:03 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Cory:
To my eyes, nothing in the origin or meaning of the word art implies 'spontaneous' or 'improvisational' or 'unrefined' or 'incomplete' or etc... |
Are you saying, then, that works of whatever that possess these traits should not be called art? There goes Garry Winogrand, Diane Arbus, Georges Matthieu, Jack Kerouac, Turandot, and all of jazz music.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 08:34:08 AM · #43 |
The problem is with the word 'art'. Probably art is an empty and subjective word.
The whole discussion starts from snapshots better than set up shots. Many set up shots can be empty, maybe most of mine are. Of course many snapshots are empty as well. Snapshots can capture a moment in life and they can be unique. Some set up shots can represent an idea and in that way they can be unique as well. Most paintings of the past were set up. Are Caravaggio's, Valazquez's or Vermeer's paintings (just to name a few) worse because they were thought before?
But I want to say once again, the problem is with the word 'art'. But who dares to say I'm an artist is most of the times full of himself. I never pretended to be an artist and never will. But I'm a creative. Creativity is a fact, art is not.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 08:56:39 AM · #44 |
Okay here is where I am at. I am ready to admit that I was wrong, but with a challenge to all of you that you admit that you are wrong as well. I was wrong to call certain kinds of images on this site "snapshots". I didn't mean it that way, although I know now it sounded pretentious. I actually really admire many photos of the people mentioned below by posthumous. What I meant was that just because a photo is uncontrived does not necessarily make it better than those who put a lot of thought and processing in an image.
Now some of you need to admit you are wrong and admit that there is merit and art (not just wall hangings) in the photographers work I mentioned below ( i.e. gyban,judi). Of course not all of these photographers photos can be classified as such but what photographer only has gems in their portfolio?
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 09:09:06 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by sjhuls:
I will say one thing before I go then I won't be saying anything else for awhile. While I appreciate the efforts of posthumous to put up this list. And I admire many of the artists featured. Why are there no artist like Gyban, lydiatoo, njabs, judi mentioned? I would say these are great artist and contrivers.
Everyone jumps on Pam for voicing a lone opinion for those of us now too afraid to do so. Sorry I don't recognize this site anymore. It used to be that all forms of photography were celebrated. Now it seems if you don't belong to the group mentioned by posthumous, you are someone to be despised mocked and laughed at. No wonder so many people are jumping ship. |
I hope you will not stay quiet, just as I hope Pam does not. I'd always felt that only one kind of photography was celebrated here, until a bit of an underground developed around posthumous and some others. But it was still a minority and somewhat marginalised view, even then.
Your post makes me see for the first time that popular acclaim and endorsement isn't necessarily all that popular photographers value. I've been far too hasty in thinking that it was, for which I apoligise.
That doesn't mean that I much like your most recognisable photographs, nor those of the others you mentioned, because I don't. Just as you, and they, don't much like mine. And that doesn't matter. Really, it simply doesn't matter.
I'm going to presume to quote from a PM that I wrote today to one of my best DPC friends (and a popular photographer, in the main, with heaps of ribbons) in which I tried to explain art, the universe and everything (!). I hope that it gives some insight into an alternative view, and I want you to know that as far as your own work goes, your opinion matters far more than mine, and it always will. This is what I said:
" ... many folks think that art is an essential component of excellent photography, which we both know it is not. Lots of great photographs are not art, and lots of great art photographs are not good photography.
I think art is important but I don't think it's necessarily important to photography. For example, I don't think that any, not even one, of my own photographs is art. If someone else does, that's OK, but it's their call and not mine. I'm not being falsely modest: I don't aspire to making art at all. Just interesting photographs.
Now, what's interesting? To me, it's a bit extreme. I think that by definition, anything that's popular is not very interesting ... because what's popular is usually something that's fully realised; complete. I simply am not interested in fully realised things; not in visual art, in literature or in music. Which is why I rarely find that I have given ribbon winning photographs a score above 5. But recognise this, mate ... I'm not looking for art, I'm looking for interest."
I know I risk your seeing that as condescending, or patronising, or something along those lines, but I don't mean it that way at all. There is a difference, a big difference sometimes, between great photography and photographic art. I can't do either one. You can do at least one (in my opinion), and hopefully both in your own opinion.
I regret that the worm has perhaps turned too far for your taste, but you and Pam and the others are as critical to DPC's health as anyone else, and I hope you will recognise that.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 09:21:43 AM · #46 |
| I guess what it all boils down to is this: just because it isn't your style or what you prefer doesn't make it any less of a piece of art. I can recognize art in style that is not my own. Would I purchase them or give them a high score in a challenge, probably not. But I would not call them garbage or worthless(not art). I think there is art in all forms or styles of photography. I'm not asking you to give me a high score, or write a comment of praise on my photographs, I am only asking you to recognize that it is art. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 09:28:56 AM · #47 |
I most certainly do not make art of any kind. At all. I take snapshots. I'm quite happy with that. I do get a bit sad - I guess that would be the word - when people use the word "snapshot" to denigrate photography. To me, it IS photography. I think Don's original post was more about different forms of photography (and art) than "what is art" in general, but that's just my reading of it.
I admire the heck out of those of you who have the vision to set up a shot, then execute it, then complete it. I simply CAN NOT do that. I do not have that skillset and have as of yet been unable to develop it. You guys are amazing, in my opinion.
I'm also floored by the truly skilled street photographers who have an eye for composition, for timing, for light, that lets them see what others so often may miss. That moment bit, if you will.
I'll let you guys go on about art. I don't do it. I don't even think I'd recognize it if it bit me in the derriere, but I DO enjoy photography. :-) |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 09:36:03 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by sjhuls:
I guess what it all boils down to is this: just because it isn't your style or what you prefer doesn't make it any less of a piece of art. I can recognize art in style that is not my own. Would I purchase them or give them a high score in a challenge, probably not. But I would not call them garbage or worthless(not art). I think there is art in all forms or styles of photography. I'm not asking you to give me a high score, or write a comment of praise on my photographs, I am only asking you to recognize that it is art. |
'Not art' does not equal 'worthless'. Most of the greatest, most celebrated and most significant photographs of history are not art.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 09:40:10 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I most certainly do not make art of any kind. At all. I take snapshots. I'm quite happy with that. I do get a bit sad - I guess that would be the word - when people use the word "snapshot" to denigrate photography. To me, it IS photography. I think Don's original post was more about different forms of photography (and art) than "what is art" in general, but that's just my reading of it.
I admire the heck out of those of you who have the vision to set up a shot, then execute it, then complete it. I simply CAN NOT do that. I do not have that skillset and have as of yet been unable to develop it. You guys are amazing, in my opinion.
I'm also floored by the truly skilled street photographers who have an eye for composition, for timing, for light, that lets them see what others so often may miss. That moment bit, if you will.
I'll let you guys go on about art. I don't do it. I don't even think I'd recognize it if it bit me in the derriere, but I DO enjoy photography. :-) |
What Deb said - thanks Deb, I am, like yourself, a snapshot person these days. Snaps are good :)
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 09:51:00 AM · #50 |
we try to find this particular needle in a haystack
remember all:
ARS LONGA VITA BREVIS
and what Leonardo (I mean the real Da Vinci) said:
Art is never finished, only abandoned
and someone on the internet gave an explanation:
"Art is not a race to be won by crossing a finish line at a certain distance. Art is not about capturing something ‘perfect’ and showing it to the world.
Art is about the imperfectness of it all, of life. Art is a teacher that teaches that this thing we̢۪re doing is not about coming in first (whatever that means). Art shouts to us that we are all different and yet similar at the same time. It screams that this is not a race for we̢۪re all running in different directions.
Art teaches us that we are never done learning, never done exploring, never done growing. And yet at the same times whispers that although we aren’t done growing we should constantly put ourselves out there like it does. Art is eternally unfinished and it knows thatâ€Â¦ And that’s the point." |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/25/2025 09:08:30 PM  |
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: 07/25/2025 09:08:30 PM EDT.
|
