| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/13/2004 11:45:59 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by prozac:
I think that what goldberry was trying to say is that most artist - even if they are happy with there work - can always see room in themselves for improvement. Its the driving force that pushes us on and makes us stive to better ouselves
Why do people get so sensitive? |
That makes sense, but not the next post which states that "No artist is ever happy with what they produce."
Perhaps it wasn't meant as a blanket statement, but it certainly was presented that way. And I disagree with it wholeheartedly.
Message edited by author 2004-10-13 11:46:33. |
|
|
|
10/13/2004 11:47:49 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by moodville:
[quote=jmsetzler]
I would be one of those people. I have some photograhs that I like, but normally after a period of time I grow to dislike them. It's likely the emotional attachment that I had for the image has waned and I see the image for all its technical imperfections. |
I can feel this also, but on the flip side of that coin, I have grown to really like some older photos in my collection that I hated to start with... which is probably a result of your next comment...
Originally posted by moodville:
People develop and change and their likes and dislikes change too. |
This is absolutely true. I know mine have changed significantly since I took up photography and I haven't hit the 3 year mark yet.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2004 11:49:52 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by prozac:
I think that what goldberry was trying to say is that most artist - even if they are happy with there work - can always see room in themselves for improvement. Its the driving force that pushes us on and makes us stive to better ouselves
Why do people get so sensitive? |
Thank you :-) That's exactly it.
When someone says they don't like their work, they probably mean it. They might show it around becuase they know people are oblivious to the imperfections the creator sees. Of course there are the pompous who love what they do and and think if you don't like it you're obviously a moron (ie most of the music industry lol) but they drive themselves mad with the pressure that ensues.... or so I figure.
Anyway, all that aside, some great posts here.
And the comment about thinking you're cool in the 80's - well, that pretty much sums it up. People change, technology changes, styles change that's for sure. So, personally, I HAVE to be aware that even though I may like a photo today, I probably won't tomorrow, which means it's probably not THAT great today.
Know what I mean??? |
|
|
|
10/13/2004 11:53:27 AM · #29 |
You know what really sucked? The 90's.
My least favourite decade for popular music. I give it full credit for leading me into the depths of the wonderful world of music that can't be found on the radio.
Thank you 90's, you whore.
;0) |
|
|
|
10/13/2004 12:00:42 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
You know what really sucked? The 90's.
My least favourite decade for popular music. I give it full credit for leading me into the depths of the wonderful world of music that can't be found on the radio.
Thank you 90's, you whore.
;0) |
LOL....for real |
|
|
|
10/13/2004 12:03:49 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
You know what really sucked? The 90's.
My least favourite decade for popular music. I give it full credit for leading me into the depths of the wonderful world of music that can't be found on the radio.
Thank you 90's, you whore.
;0) |
Hey hey now! I was going to defend the 90's but then realized that's when U2 put out Discoteque..*shudder*
But I still love 'em.
What about art in the 90's? Anything stand out? |
|
|
|
10/13/2004 12:07:50 PM · #32 |
| I think the 90s can be summed up for me by one person, John Major, LOL. Says it all. |
|
|
|
10/13/2004 12:09:56 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I think the 90s can be summed up for me by one person, John Major, LOL. Says it all. |
Sticking with the UK theme, how about Spice Girls?
I vividly remember the shock with which I discovered that a year after their introduction, not only had they not fallen into infinite obscurity but their popularity had actually increased!
Spoon feed me, Mr. World, spoon feed me! |
|
|
|
10/13/2004 12:11:25 PM · #34 |
First of all this is a universal argument and as such both sides of the original principle of the argument present plausible arguments.
Another way to look at it is that the self appointed artist has a mission of self expression which seeks a degree of perfection and the higher he climbs the wider does the vista grow. It is a trip with much improvement in many cases, but the ultimate goal is forever elusive.
Now, each artist goes through phases to enhance their art. For example, there is a guitarist named Christopher Parkening (please check my spelling). He was hailed by critics for his talent...yet he hid for ten years to perfect his technique and then reappeared to claim his fame.
If they loved his renditions before, they now enjoy them more. What this means is that each self appointed artist knows well in his heart that the medium of his expression is his language to communicate. His inability to master the medium is his frustration. That is, every failure he encounters, when he bombs, tells him there is more to this medium than he acknowledges to know. Basically all artist create within the limitations of their comprehension of their medium.
To conclude, it is okay to be satisfied with work in different stages, but complete satisfaction eludes even the grandmasters because a nuance escaped expression in the final expression.
The lesson in this thread is to be relatively happy with your efforts conceived and executed in the time line of your evolution, but not to sit on your laurels and exclaim, "I have mastered my art."
The anguish of the artist is that his final word remains unsaid because the medium limits, to a degree his unequivocal expression and sometimes his mind is so active and prodigious with ideas that never get captured and just fade away because only so much gets chosen for his work.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2004 12:16:42 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Now, each artist goes through phases to enhance their art. For example, there is a guitarist named Christopher Parkening (please check my spelling). He was hailed by critics for his talent...yet he hid for ten years to perfect his technique and then reappeared to claim his fame. |
Reminds me of stories of Pagannini and Robert Johnson... maybe he went and sold his soul to the devil?
Seriously, one of my favourite pianists, Pollini, won the Leeds Piano Competition, and refused to record for years after that, very controversial. Very fussy about what he records as he's such a perfectionist, but WOW they're good. This doesn't work for everyone though, sometimes the search for perfection can kill the soul of an artist. It's always a fine line between technical ambition and spiritless, soulless expression. |
|
|
|
10/13/2004 02:00:56 PM · #36 |
Maybe I look at this differently. When I set out, vision in mind, to create a photograph, it is always with the intention of conveying something to someone else -- and I usually have who it is for in mind as well; at least a general type of person, anyway. Once I finish the photograph, it is done. It isn't finished until it says what I want it to say; but as soon as it says it, it is done and I show it to who it was intended for. To keep creating it past the point it is finished just doesn't make any sense to me -- my purpose is the communication, not the medium.
Sure the meduim, and my skill at using it, can be improved; the same as my vocabulary can be improved. But just because there is room for improvement does not mean what I have at my disposal is not capable of conveying the impact I am after. A larger vocabulary just allows me produce the impact in more ways and to a larger audience.
As long as I convey the intended impact to the intended audience, I am completely happy with my work. It has served its purpose. As long as that purpose is met, I don't agonize that what I produced could have been better, anymore than I agonize over what I said yesterday. I don't worry about my work being hung on a wall, or sealed behind glass somewhere. I am just not identifying the message (or myself for that matter) with the medium I choose to say it with.
But, I am sure others have differing ideas about this -- as they most likely have differing purposes for their work.
David
|
|
|
|
10/13/2004 02:45:06 PM · #37 |
So then,
To improve your medium is to improve communication.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2004 02:56:33 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by prozac:
I think that what goldberry was trying to say is that most artist - even if they are happy with there work - can always see room in themselves for improvement. Its the driving force that pushes us on and makes us stive to better ouselves
Why do people get so sensitive? |
That's it in a nutshell.
Personal satisfaction is okay if you think you are perfect. Self doubt is great if you want a depressed life. But, to strive to do better, and knowing that you can is what we should all be aiming for.
If not, how can we judge whether we have made progress or just stood still. In my original posting I never said I had failed, I said I felt that I could do better, and that there was more to come from inside.
If you can't have a goal to aim for, you may as well pack up! Unless, you consider yourself perfect in every way? |
|
|
|
10/13/2004 02:56:54 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
...the self appointed artist has a mission of self expression which seeks a degree of perfection and the higher he climbs the wider does the vista grow. It is a trip with much improvement in many cases, but the ultimate goal is forever elusive.
...each self appointed artist knows well in his heart that the medium of his expression is his language to communicate. His inability to master the medium is his frustration. That is, every failure he encounters, when he bombs, tells him there is more to this medium than he acknowledges to know. Basically all artist create within the limitations of their comprehension of their medium.
...it is okay to be satisfied with work in different stages, but complete satisfaction eludes even the grandmasters because a nuance escaped expression in the final expression.
The lesson in this thread is to be relatively happy with your efforts conceived and executed in the time line of your evolution, but not to sit on your laurels and exclaim, "I have mastered my art."
The anguish of the artist is that his final word remains unsaid because the medium limits, to a degree his unequivocal expression and sometimes his mind is so active and prodigious with ideas that never get captured and just fade away because only so much gets chosen for his work. |
(Omissions mine)
The self-appointed artist, his work as much as his life, is either doomed to start with or short-lived in this role. Life, IMO, appoints art, the muses do, need does. We cannot, sensibly, appoint ourselves without cause, motivation and impetus. The higher he climbs (the self-appointed artist), the thinner the air and the narrower his footing. I don't envy him for his vistae either, from a perspective obscured by remoteness and his self-generated clouds. And yes, the ultimate goal is as absurd as it must be elusive.
The idea that artists only express themselves is, IMHO, at the root of much misconception and erroneous speculation of what art is, where it comes from and how it works in our lives. Yes, someone's art may well be perceived as highly personal in the way it can effect the very fibres of an artist's being, yet it is more profitable, I believe, to look for substance in the circumstances and among the facts to which he ows his expression.
When someone creates a thing (so apparently) from nothing, we can be fairly certain, that something is afoot. Sheer natural forces, childbirth or the thing we call 'magic' have been ascribed such properties. I'm sure we can all agree that there is, indeed, good cause for all of these phenomena, dispite the fact that we cannot always pinpoint it.
I propose, that when someone creates a thing from nothing, he does so because he cannot do otherwise. My motivation for writing, and, sometimes, for taking photographs is a tension that exists between a strong emotion (rage, indignation etc.) or a sense I might have about something and its opposite (often an ideal, a fulfillment, a 'good').
Via the process of art I can, at best, discover a transformation of my original, motivating sense to an entirely different one, a transcendence, if you will, from, say, impotent rage to a piece which communicates, say, love or compassion.
My song, my picture, therefore can no longer said to be a form of self-expression. It has, instead, become a kind of esoteric document or demonstration of a natural process the range of which extends well beyond the confines of my own being and existence.
I strongly agree with the remaining paragraphs.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2004 03:17:59 PM · #40 |
I have to admit 'zen, that was a long post and for the sake of time (I really should get back to work) I didn't read it all.
But you're right on the point that artists don't only express their OWN view and opinions.
Many poignant photographs, paintings, songs were composed to convey emotions of someone (or something) else.
BUT, it is still the artist's interpretation of the subject.
Yes? No? |
|
|
|
10/13/2004 03:34:29 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
My song, my picture, therefore can no longer said to be a form of self-expression. It has, instead, become a kind of esoteric document or demonstration of a natural process the range of which extends well beyond the confines of my own being and existence. |
"Once we've played those notes we're finished with them."
--Jerry Garcia (remarking on why the Grateful Dead allowed bootleg taping of their concerts) |
|
|
|
10/13/2004 04:43:15 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
My song, my picture, therefore can no longer said to be a form of self-expression. It has, instead, become a kind of esoteric document or demonstration of a natural process the range of which extends well beyond the confines of my own being and existence. |
"Once we've played those notes we're finished with them."
--Jerry Garcia (remarking on why the Grateful Dead allowed bootleg taping of their concerts) |
Photographers deal in things which are continually vanishing and when they have vanished there is no contrivance on earth which can make them come back again. ~Henri Cartier-Bresson
|
|
|
|
10/13/2004 05:39:21 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
[quote=riotspyne] I was told , "people who think they are the best, never get better"
i believe that. |
Interesting observation. There is however a major divide between "believing you are the best" and "believing your the best ........... at the moment".
There have been times in my life when I have felt that at that moment I was genuinely the best, however I also recognised that is was at "that moment",It drove on to continue to improve to try and keep that position.
I was however pleased when my I was knocked off my self built pedestal, as it inspired me further to focus and improve.
That was however in a previous life when I was younger, faster and a lot fitter..... |
|
|
|
10/14/2004 02:54:49 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... "Once we've played those notes we're finished with them."
--Jerry Garcia (remarking on why the Grateful Dead allowed bootleg taping of their concerts) |
Thank you. That is exactly the sentiment I used far to many words to express in my previous post.
David
|
|
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: 08/02/2025 05:51:42 PM EDT.
