| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2013 10:01:12 AM · #51 |
Thanks for the civility. I'm sure glad we all don't agree. Wouldn't that make for a boring place.
I like this quote "I want to produce images that startle one into recollection." - John Baldessari
Seems like this approach could work for many on here. Images that have this feeling are easy to revisit. For me, that's the greatest complement. Failure is when a image is only viewed once.
Example of a snapshot that I revisit from time to time:
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 10:01:22 AM · #52 |
My muddled thoughts:
Photography is an artform.
Absolutely!
Photography is my art. But the funny thing is -- I do photography. I have 4 photographs I consider art. I could probably extend that to 10. That's out of 621 challenge entries. Which translates to probably hundreds of thousands of photos taken in my lifetime. Oh -- if I include slides, I'm probably up to 7-15 pieces of art.
But that's by my definition.
But if photography is my art, why don't I have more art?
Maybe I've been creating art all this time and just didn't know it. :)
This one is definitely art, though. And you'd all better realize it! :P
 |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 10:19:37 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by insteps:
Example of a snapshot that I revisit from time to time:
|
Certainly one of Biscuit's best shots. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 11:10:09 AM · #54 |
"The line between snap and contrivance is a complete enigma in many photographers, like 21.gif rooum and 21_F.gif LoVi."
pulse rapid possessed positioned open followed consumed tortured allowed spoken in twisted lapping long luxurious tongues of divine allowed expression pulsing swelling colors floating redirecting dizzying
entry seeker collective voices of colors light mere mortals a vehicle of expressions flowing feeling delivering rapid heart beat
no definition
abandon complete submission fervent feverish protests release flow expression vehicle alone selective never alone always followed intervention divine
lack of confusion complete bliss..... ego driven
direction joy arrogant
purpose happiness self centered
goddess glory eccentric
I am but a vessel from which the collective voices speak that which make me as changeable as the passing moments the materials in the souls of the unseen
the places we have been and are longing to go
that which speaks thru me offer me the ability to be just that able against all odds
without fear
without the need for definition
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 11:21:13 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
...the word ART let's use it the best of our understanding for now and not put limits to it. |
Oh, so we can just use words in whatever way we understand them?
And here I've been so silly as to use dictionaries my entire life! |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 11:27:27 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by bvy:
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. |
There's a difference, and you know it I suspect.
I didn't say that anything with those traits cannot be called art. I simply said that those traits do not make something art, and in fact, art requires a level of real effort and involvement. Of course, I'd say your list above is filled with those who were involved with their work and put forth real effort (and ostensibly had skill in what they do)..
I feel that way about your work - they may look spontaneous, but there's years of effort behind that spontaneity..
We clear on this now Brian? |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 11:28:21 AM · #57 |
| Dictionaries are reactive, not proactive. They represent a history of language, not the reality of it. Dictionaries are irrelevant to art. Art is the future, not the past. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 12:03:38 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by insteps:
Thanks for the civility. I'm sure glad we all don't agree. Wouldn't that make for a boring place.
I like this quote "I want to produce images that startle one into recollection." - John Baldessari
Seems like this approach could work for many on here. Images that have this feeling are easy to revisit. For me, that's the greatest complement. Failure is when a image is only viewed once.
Example of a snapshot that I revisit from time to time:
|
If that's a snapshot I'm Queen Elizabeth. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 12:14:25 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by LoVi:
"The line between snap and contrivance is a complete enigma in many photographers, like 21.gif rooum and 21_F.gif LoVi."
pulse rapid possessed positioned open followed consumed tortured allowed spoken in twisted lapping long luxurious tongues of divine allowed expression pulsing swelling colors floating redirecting dizzying
entry seeker collective voices of colors light mere mortals a vehicle of expressions flowing feeling delivering rapid heart beat
no definition
abandon complete submission fervent feverish protests release flow expression vehicle alone selective never alone always followed intervention divine
lack of confusion complete bliss..... ego driven
direction joy arrogant
purpose happiness self centered
goddess glory eccentric
I am but a vessel from which the collective voices speak that which make me as changeable as the passing moments the materials in the souls of the unseen
the places we have been and are longing to go
that which speaks thru me offer me the ability to be just that able against all odds
without fear
without the need for definition |
And this folks, is why we need to use language as prescribed in that reactionary document known as a 'Dictionary'.. :D |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 12:21:56 PM · #60 |
Thank you.....Cory....whomever you are. :-)))
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 12:35:37 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Dictionaries are reactive, not proactive. They represent a history of language, not the reality of it. Dictionaries are irrelevant to art. Art is the future, not the past. |
Quite astonished by this, actually, Robert. Where is the evolution of art, and "The Arts" if not from history, influence, example, and education?
Originally posted by Cory:
And this folks, is why we need to use language as prescribed in that reactionary document known as a 'Dictionary'.. :D |
Okay.......whose dictionary you wanna use? Which edition? Which one's "right"? Do euphemisms and popular vernacular count?
Point is......I want to see what different people see as art......I want to experience their vision, try to understand how their souls are touched/inspired in their worldview.
I don't have *ANY* issue with the definition, or the complete lack thereof, as it pertains to art.....what I *DO* have a problem with is the concept that different is wrong. Different, to me, in forms of expression is never wrong, simply different.
"Vive la difference!"
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 12:39:32 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by insteps:
Thanks for the civility. I'm sure glad we all don't agree. Wouldn't that make for a boring place.
I like this quote "I want to produce images that startle one into recollection." - John Baldessari
Seems like this approach could work for many on here. Images that have this feeling are easy to revisit. For me, that's the greatest complement. Failure is when a image is only viewed once.
Example of a snapshot that I revisit from time to time:
|
If that's a snapshot I'm Queen Elizabeth. |
Websters definition of a snapshot.
1 : a casual photograph made typically by an amateur with a small handheld camera
2 : an impression or view of something brief or transitory
Even Mark's comments on the image describe this approach. I think you're more concerned with the results than process. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 12:54:07 PM · #63 |
Wendy's right. I shouldn't have made that remark in this thread, and I have removed it. So you are no longer allowed to discuss "what is art" in this thread.
I find it funny that I've been accused of only liking blurry photos when I excluded them from both categories of art. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 01:23:26 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
So you are no longer allowed to discuss "what is art" in this thread. |
One last observation from Oscar Wilde ...  |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 01:57:55 PM · #65 |
I don't know what art is and frankly I don't care to label it. I find a wide variety of images pleasing and whether or not they are considered art is irrelevant. I have been to many gallery's and some stuff I love and some stuff I hate. I am more interested on the impact an image has on me than any label.
These are some of my favorite images from here.
  
  
Are they art? I don't know, I don't care. I do find the original post and the discussion that could come from it fascinating though, why must we make everything all inclusive? I like many more images and style than what the topic may or may not be about but I think the discussion could be thought provoking and interesting if we would take it like that and not start throwing more stuff in. One forum thread need not incorporate everything, it is ok to leave some stuff and some styles out and not worry so much about definitions but rather talk about feelings and styles. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 02:14:58 PM · #66 |
So I wonder what  nixter would be. I immediately figured he was a snapper. But I think there's too much composition and decisions in his works to be snaps. I think they much fall more into the contrivers. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 02:28:44 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
So I wonder what nixter would be. I immediately figured he was a snapper. But I think there's too much composition and decisions in his works to be snaps. I think they much fall more into the contrivers. |
Not everyone is a snapper or contriver.(there aren't only two categories)I am 1/4 snapper, 1/2 contriver, and 1/4 monotone bullshit artist(on my father's side).
Good discussion though. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 02:44:04 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by vawendy:
So I wonder what nixter would be. I immediately figured he was a snapper. But I think there's too much composition and decisions in his works to be snaps. I think they much fall more into the contrivers. |
Not everyone is a snapper or contriver.(there aren't only two categories)I am 1/4 snapper, 1/2 contriver, and 1/4 monotone bullshit artist(on my father's side).
Good discussion though. |
I'm 1/4 German and the other half is Polish. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 03:55:20 PM · #69 |
| unfortunately I have no polish, but I respect those who do... |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 04:14:42 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Dictionaries are reactive, not proactive. They represent a history of language, not the reality of it. Dictionaries are irrelevant to art. Art is the future, not the past. |
Quite astonished by this, actually, Robert. Where is the evolution of art, and "The Arts" if not from history, influence, example, and education? |
But evolution IS the future, Jeb: and the History of Art, as indeed the History of anything, is by definition reactive. So when we look to CREATE "art", to the extent it's done consciously, we really shouldn't be looking to the past,. any more than a poet ought to be "creating" poetry by applying the rules he finds in a handbook of prosody. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 04:15:30 PM · #71 |
| snappers vs contrivers is a false dichotomy |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 04:27:53 PM · #72 |
I think, for the most part, each individual shot is either a snap or a contrived shot, however. You're not controlling the nature shots. You may wait for them, but it's still a capture of a moment in time, over which you don't have much control. The street shots, pretty much the same. The setup shots, the stock shots, the portraits (not candid) are contrived. The candids are a capture of a moment in time.
Perhaps it's control vs anarchy then instead of snap vs contrive. :) |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 04:35:08 PM · #73 |
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? |
I so aggree with Wendy, My eye tends to like the Contrivers shots more, However, I've been blown away by several of the Snappers shots! I personaly think ART real ART is a very personal thing. It is what envokes emotion and feelings to Yourself. Plus, you have to be true to yourself, if you see what is pleasing and artful, to you, yet you go and shoot something to please the crowd, then you are not putting your soul into that. I have two large canvas' hanging in my house, to me it's the best thing I've ever done, and they were shot with a cool pix point n shoot! No photoshop, nothing but what came out of the camera. I'm sure others would go meh, but if I saw them for sale I would've bought them. When I look at them I FEEL... so that is art to me.
I also think your Life dictates what you see as art. I've been so near sighted all my life I couldn't see clearly my hand with out glasses, So I actually saw things the way the snappers shoot... for that reason, I tend to love the totaly crisp, in focus shots and paintings! The great masters, I am not impressed with a lot of the masterpieces of the world, simply because my eyes yearned for clarity.
Ok my 2 cents... now I shall shut up.... Carry on |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 04:40:35 PM · #74 |
| I think there are few images - if any - made purely one way or the other. I guess I would fall into the contriver camp, and yet, despite my best planning and contriving, often the shots I choose from my shoots are where something unexpected (to me) happened. I actually contrive to the point where I allow the unplanned to take over. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 04:41:47 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I think, for the most part, each individual shot is either a snap or a contrived shot, however.... |
No, look at the list of don's exceptions. Processing, for example, can do a lot to change how the final image feels - or at least complicate its categorization.
|
|
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 09:10:17 PM EDT.
