Creativity? - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

09/27/2004 08:40:22 AM · #28

Congrats to Terje, Eojedaa and Labuda! Wonderful, inspirational images!

...and the interesting thing is that they were taken with the Canon 20D, Sony DSC-V1 and the Sony DSC F717. The artists who created these (and many other images in this challenge) had the vision and the creativity to realise that vision. It's not the equipment, it's the person behind the camera that really matters. That's my inspiration and motivation. Thankyou all!

sue

skylen

Nikon D200

09/27/2004 09:32:27 AM · #29

Originally posted by eojedaa:

Originally posted by skylen:

Also, I gave up on BOTH ideas because it seemed to obvious, and uncreative.I've seen images exactly like these two before somewhere. Not original at all.

Well skylen, I need to point out here that by no means these images are obvious. Maybe its obvious for you seeing a 747 fly, althouh tons of knowledge are needed to design one.

Its not obvious how a water balloon breaks, how the surface creates wrinkles, how half the water is pushed upwards and half downwards, how
the initial impact of the bullet creates a backward tail... and much more you can discover if you look enough.

No, no, no. You misunderstand me. The effort and skill and ingenuity that went into the winning entries is incredible. I couldn't have done half as well.

I was speaking purely of the choice of subject, not execution. These are standard 'freezing motion' type shots. For instance, here are some others like the baloon shot. (After looking at these, though, I have to say that your shot is by far the best one I've seen.)

09/27/2004 09:41:28 AM · #30

I have already learned so much in my time here at DPC. Unfortunaltey, I don't feel it's anything I should take with me into the art world. Because apparently the people who win here, or who vote the winners in, aren't interested in seeing something that's artistic. They're looking for well executed technique, and predictable "stock" shots.

What does this mean?

It means that if it's not COMPLETELY in focus, or has the SLIGHTEST bit of grain, no matter the INTENT of the ARTIST, it's an uninteresting, poorly executed photo. Now, with my first photo that I entered, for the Mirrors challenge, I didn't quite realize how much grain there truly was until I looked on a different monitor. Fine. But I just got a comment on mine that shocked me. Apparently, in order to have executed proper DOF, the foreground alone can be sharp and in focus. Heaven forbid, it was the intent to have the subject in focus, and everything else blurred. OH NO!!!! THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!

So in conclusion, if I need to be predictable, and create clean lines, use a subject that's been tried and overdone, without being original, and slap someone in the face with the meaning behind it, rather then using my own brain and saying well...this is my idea, it's original, and it makes the viewer THINK for more then the two seconds it takes to click the number 1-10, then I'll live with my 4's and 5's. Looking aroud this site, the ones that get voted as "average", really are the better photographs. Because they're art.

Message edited by author 2004-09-27 09:46:36.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

09/27/2004 11:07:47 AM · #31

Originally posted by skylen:

voters don't usually rate creativity high, or these obvious THOUGH OF COURSE VERY DIFFICULT shots wouldn't win all the time.

I beg to differ. Either approach can work. I've recently turned to creativity as a way to compensate for my fairly average photographic skill. Others have used outstanding photographic skill to score well on "obvious" shots. Jacko's repeat dragonfly win on the Macro challenges is a good example.

The key to winning is to understand how the voting works: unless it's a total rip-off, an outstanding photograph that meets the challenge will get mostly high votes even if the shot has been done before. If it's appealing or funny (important), a highly creative shot that meets the challenge will get mostly high votes for originality. With either approach, the image must obviously meet the challenge, and there can't be major flaws in technique or the voters will deduct points. Those who can consistently do both at the same time (kiwiness, labuda, kosmikkreeper, jjbeguin, smokeditor, etc.) usually have a long list of ribbons on their profile page.

moodville

Nikon D100

09/27/2004 11:42:22 AM · #32

Originally posted by atsxus:

So in conclusion, if I need to be predictable, and create clean lines, use a subject that's been tried and overdone, without being original, and slap someone in the face with the meaning behind it, rather then using my own brain and saying well...this is my idea, it's original, and it makes the viewer THINK for more then the two seconds it takes to click the number 1-10, then I'll live with my 4's and 5's. Looking aroud this site, the ones that get voted as "average", really are the better photographs. Because they're art.

Well art is subjective and just because someone has labeled something 'art' does not mean it is good. Even if the intent of the artist is to do something specific it does not mean that the intent is communicated sufficiently to the viewer. If something is not technically well done does not mean that it instantly qualifies as art. Sometimes a bad focus photograph is actually just a bad focus photograph.

That said, welcome to DPC. All of the above is what it takes to get a ribbon. If you want a ribbon then you now know how to do it. If you want to have a small niche of fans who like your artistic style then just stick with what you are doing. Even if the majority of comments you get are pointing out the bad things there are usually some who like your shot for the reasons you created it.

09/27/2004 01:15:02 PM · #33

Originally posted by moodville:

...Well art is subjective and just because someone has labeled something 'art' does not mean it is good...

I'd agree with your gist, but can't subscribe to your argument. If 'art is subjective', everything is subjective. If everything is subjective, nothing can, sensibly, be argued.

I can deem a work to be 'art' or I can, if then I do, recognize 'art'. If I sustain a blow to the head, am I knocked out? I may be... When you're knocked out, coz I sustained a blow to the head, well, I guarantee you more than conjecture was involved in the process. ;-)

09/27/2004 01:24:56 PM · #34

Originally posted by zeuszen:

If 'art is subjective', everything is subjective. If everything is subjective, nothing can, sensibly, be argued.

Why do you say that if art is subjective, everything is subjective?

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me.

Message edited by author 2004-09-27 13:25:11.

09/27/2004 01:49:08 PM · #35

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

If 'art is subjective', everything is subjective. If everything is subjective, nothing can, sensibly, be argued.

Why do you say that if art is subjective, everything is subjective?

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me.

Now, that's subjective. ;-)

What I'm trying to say here is that what is subjective about art, is a conveniently exclusive perception of the matter which denies any universal criteria. This is not helpful, if we want to tackle the nature of the beast.

To, simply and conveniently, catagorize something which is difficult to come to terms with, even on an ad hoc basis, is just not enough.

09/27/2004 01:57:10 PM · #36

That's nice and I agree, but what part of her post are you disagreeing with?

09/27/2004 01:59:50 PM · #37

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

That's nice and I agree, but what part of her post are you disagreeing with?

The one I quoted with the implications of it I discussed beneath that quote, specifically.

09/27/2004 02:05:11 PM · #38

I have to admit, the way you organize words confuses me at times...but it looked like you two were saying basically the same thing, using different words:

The recognition of art is subjective. Deeming it art doesn't make it 'good'.

Am I far off?

Message edited by author 2004-09-27 14:05:26.

09/27/2004 02:29:29 PM · #39

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

When you recognize a chair, you a) will have seen, at least, one before and b) you know enough about a culture of chairs to be able to attach a purpose, merit or meaning to one, all of which you should then also be able to relate to others who share the same experience.

Deeming a chair to be a chair, without that experience, is of no use.
Deeming a chair to be a chair, after having experienced a) and b) is a use which may, sensibly, be extended.

Yes?

Message edited by author 2004-09-27 14:29:56.

09/27/2004 02:40:13 PM · #40

I totally agree...without a doubt.

Now, when asking "how good is that chair?", you employ your past chair-experience to form a subjective opinion.

To re-phrase what moodville said:

"Well, 'chairs' are subjective and just because someone has labeled something 'chair' does not mean it is good."

To be more concise, she might have said "Well, quality of art is subjective and just because someone has labeled something 'art' does not mean it is good."

So...I think the three of us are on the same page. Yes?

terje

Apple iPhone

09/27/2004 02:41:49 PM · #41

If you continue now, you'll flip this thread into page 2 dude. :-)

09/27/2004 02:42:54 PM · #42

Originally posted by terje:

If you continue now, you'll flip this thread into page 2 dude. :-)

You got that honour!

09/27/2004 02:52:16 PM · #43

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

...So...I think the three of us are on the same page. Yes?

We are with the gist of moody's original statement.
I resisted her line of argument mainly, because I've read it several times before here, on DPC. When something gets involved or complex, we often resort to a convenience, instead of sharing in a struggle for understanding, which, IMO, is preferable to pancake mix. ;-)

09/27/2004 02:54:26 PM · #44

Originally posted by terje:

If you continue now, you'll flip this thread into page 2 dude. :-)

We hardly resemble a dude, do we, Mike? ;-)

09/27/2004 03:44:49 PM · #45

[quote]All of the above is what it takes to get a ribbon. If you want a ribbon then you now know how to do it. If you want to have a small niche of fans who like your artistic style then just stick with what you are doing. Even if the majority of comments you get are pointing out the bad things there are usually some who like your shot for the reasons you created it. [/quote]

ok...I guess here's my "problem". A lot of people on this site say..."look at the photographs, and you'll see what it takes to win a ribbon", or something to that effect.

My issue is, that yes, I can set up a little studio with a plain white or black background, set up a lightbulb, my camera on a tripod, attach the shutter cord, have someone smash the bulb into oblivion, and snap the shot. Now, theoretically, if I have all the settings and the lighting right, I'll get a beautiful "stop motion" effect of the shards of glass going every which way, hopefully though, no where near my eye, or anything else of vital importance to me, or the person smashing the lightbulb. Now granted, the first person to do that, had a wonderful idea. Well executed even. But to my knowledge, the point of getting a blue ribbon, or any other ribbon for that matter, is not to see if you can execute the same shot someone else has done.

To set an example.

I want to bake a chocolate cake. So I follow a tried and true recipe. It comes out delicious, and everyone loves it. You get 10 cooks together, and everyone bakes the same cake....and it's just a chocolate cake. It's not unique anymore. It's still great, but it's been done. Yes, it makes you a good cook, that you can follow a recipe and get the desired result...but that doesn't make you a chef. That doesn't get you acclaim.

Artists like Picasso, or Monet, were never truly appreciated in their own time because they stepped out of the box. Believe me, I'm NOT likening myself to a picasso or a Monet, but just because something is technically sound, and follows the recipe for getting a ribbon, doesn't make it "artistic". In this case, it has nothing to do with subjectivity, and everything to do with following a proven method, and getting the expected result.

JMO.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

09/27/2004 04:44:19 PM · #46

These are all recycled, high-scoring ideas from the same photographers:

I could find many more examples of water drops, flying motorcycles, sunsets, etc. As much as we'd all like to see something new, the fact is that these are all interesting, technically excellent images that meet the challenge. As such, they get a high score. Not everyone remembers the previous image during voting (if they've seen it at all), and deducting for lack of originality is a slippery slope. If you came up with a cool idea, but got voted down because someone else had the same idea independently, you wouldn't be too happy about it.

09/27/2004 04:57:57 PM · #47

Originally posted by scalvert:

These are all recycled, high-scoring ideas from the same photographers:

I could find many more examples of water drops, flying motorcycles, sunsets, etc. As much as we'd all like to see something new, the fact is that these are all interesting, technically excellent images that meet the challenge. As such, they get a high score. Not everyone remembers the previous image during voting (if they've seen it at all), and deducting for lack of originality is a slippery slope. If you came up with a cool idea, but got voted down because someone else had the same idea independently, you wouldn't be too happy about it.

I have and I did. I did a waterdrop photo. In fact, I knew it had been done before. So I pulled in extrememly tight to make it abstract. Those who knew it for what it was marked me low because it had been done. Those who couldn't tell what it was marked me low because they couldn't tell what it was.

Having similar images in the same challenge is understandable. But having the same image win over and over is off-putting.

Just like being marked down because someone doesn't like the team you photographed is wrong. Been there too.

Message edited by author 2004-09-27 16:59:43.

moodville

Nikon D100

09/27/2004 06:44:40 PM · #48

Originally posted by atsxus:

But to my knowledge, the point of getting a blue ribbon, or any other ribbon for that matter, is not to see if you can execute the same shot someone else has done.

A blue ribbon means someone has taken a picture that appeals to the majority of voters. That appeal translates to high scores, and the highest average score is what wins.

Originally posted by atsxus:

I want to bake a chocolate cake. So I follow a tried and true recipe. It comes out delicious, and everyone loves it. You get 10 cooks together, and everyone bakes the same cake....and it's just a chocolate cake. It's not unique anymore. It's still great, but it's been done. Yes, it makes you a good cook, that you can follow a recipe and get the desired result...but that doesn't make you a chef. That doesn't get you acclaim.

If you have 10 people who follow a recipe you will still have mostly different cakes. A little extra butter or flour or cocoa powder can change an entire cake. And even after following a recipe most people will deviate a little and make changes based on previous life experience with chocolate cakes.

Originally posted by atsxus:

Artists like Picasso, or Monet, were never truly appreciated in their own time because they stepped out of the box. Believe me, I'm NOT likening myself to a picasso or a Monet, but just because something is technically sound, and follows the recipe for getting a ribbon, doesn't make it "artistic". In this case, it has nothing to do with subjectivity, and everything to do with following a proven method, and getting the expected result.

A photograph does not become artistic because it wins a ribbon, just like a photograph that has deliberate blur doesnt automatically become art. It would all boil down to what you consider to be art. If it's a visual media that expresses the opinion of the artist in whatever format then people can argue it is art. What you may consider art I may consider to be utter crap and vice versa. It is with that reasoning that I say art is subjective. And yes, it may be a cop out to say that but in the end does it really matter? If you like something, great! If I like something, great! If we both like something then even better!

"Society takes what it wants. The artist himself does not count, because there is no actual existence for the work of art. The work of art is always based on the two poles of the onlooker and the maker, and the spark that comes from the bipolar action gives birth to something - like electricity. But the onlooker has the last word, and it is always posterity that makes the masterpiece. The artist should not concern himself with this, because it has nothing to do with him." - Marcel Duchamp.

09/27/2004 09:15:31 PM · #49

Originally posted by moodville:

"Society takes what it wants. The artist himself does not count, because there is no actual existence for the work of art. The work of art is always based on the two poles of the onlooker and the maker, and the spark that comes from the bipolar action gives birth to something - like electricity. But the onlooker has the last word, and it is always posterity that makes the masterpiece. The artist should not concern himself with this, because it has nothing to do with him." - Marcel Duchamp.

This is going to be my final comment because at this point we're just going to have to agree to disagree...but to a certain extent, it IS about the artist. The point of an artists career, at least MY career, is to make a statement. I don't care if you like my work or not. If you don't like it, at least it made you feel SOMETHING. There's a piece I did, a painting, that I absolutely love BECAUSE it is disturbing. My mother can't stand it for that fact. It unsettles her. Which is fine. I don't care if nobody likes my work. But give me a reason why. If someone looks at something I've created, and walks away without any impact whatsoever, good or bad, then I've failed as an artist. And that is ENTIRELY reflected on me.

The end.