| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2003 12:18:00 PM · #26 |
I don't care who took the photo or what they were thinking when they took it. We don't even know if the photographer was thinking anything. To me it looks like a photo I would take to see if the film was advancing in my camera properly. Maybe the same thing this photographer was doing when this shot was taken. Who's to say that isn't what was done and then after the photo was developed the photographer thought to them self, "Hmmmm, I wonder if I could think of a good story to go with this photo to make people think it is something it isn't and who knows, maybe I'll win a photo contest with it."? I think this photo sucks and if I had taken this photo and published it in a challenge on this site most of you would leave me comments telling me it sucked. :-) With all that being said, I still enjoy reading everyone's comments. :-) Hope everyone is having a good day.
Of course, everything is to be taken with a grain of salt. :-)
Bill (wackybill) |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 12:25:08 PM · #27 |
"This thread shows just how hostile DPC can be towards artists"
I think that image is not very good, but I still love art. If I were to see the entire series of photographs that this one came from, I may understand Gordon's point of view. There may be other images in that collection that are wonderful. Even so, I would still think this photo in question is not good, and that it is just filler material to make the book thicker.
My wife and I have a huge appreciation for art (in fact, Tracy has a degree in fine art), but we don't feel that all work by an accomplished artist is necessarily good. That doesn't make us hostile, it makes us unbiased and realistic.
Message edited by author 2003-02-13 12:29:15.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 12:26:29 PM · #28 |
"Do you go to an art gallery and go "Eww, 3! Hmm, 5. Ooh goody, 10!"? Or do you stand in front of each image and work out what it means, why it was taken the way it was, what the artist was trying to say?"
I enjoy art due to its appeal. I don't look at unappealing art and enjoy it because I'm trying to figure out what kind of a traumatic childhood the artist had.
Message edited by author 2003-02-13 12:28:35.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 12:30:44 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
I enjoy art due to its appeal. I don't look at unappealing art and enjoy it because I'm trying to figure out what kind of a traumatic childhood the artist had. |
Then how is anyone ever supposed to express unappealing thoughts or ideas, or even EVERYDAY life like this photo? Do you think mundane or negative emotions should never go into art? |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 12:59:49 PM · #30 |
This thread, like many others similar to it, remind me of an experience I had in college, where I was studying music (the last time I checked, that was considered art). We had some visiting artists, and being a music major, I was required to go. I do not remember the artists' names, nor do I remember much about them. I do remember two parts of their performance though. The first was their instruments. They had several high dollar electronic gadgets that they hooked up to their primary instrument -- a cactus. Yes, you read that right, a cactus. Then, they "sang" a song (while playing their cactus) about being a candy wrapper and floating across the road.
Now, that was almost ten years ago, and I suppose you could use the argument that since I can remember it, it must be truly effective and appealing and thus "worthy" of an art label. In reality, I remember it because it was so durn ludicrous. Just because something stands out does not make it "good." Unique, perhaps creative, but not necessarily good by general standards. And general standards, because they are general are not "lower" standards. Hey, if you like it, that is awesome. But I can almost guarantee you if I had taken that shot, as a no name photographer, it would have been tossed in the trash.
I guess I may just be a backwards hick, but I really do get annoyed (and even amused, too) when some one makes "art" out of anything. It reminds me of another story about an emperor who wants to buy a new set of clothes, but that is another thread.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 01:01:07 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
I enjoy art due to its appeal. I don't look at unappealing art and enjoy it because I'm trying to figure out what kind of a traumatic childhood the artist had. |
Then how is anyone ever supposed to express unappealing thoughts or ideas, or even EVERYDAY life like this photo? Do you think mundane or negative emotions should never go into art? |
i love salvador dali...there are many disturbing and controversial images in his portfolio
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 01:06:25 PM · #32 |
lisae, could you please explain the context, strife, personal angst behind your photo Monument To Lust? thank you
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 01:13:32 PM · #33 |
As I have been reading all this it appears to me that something I learned a while ago is the best art is that which causes conflict and controversy. Art is never understood by all. Of course these photos at the citibank site are just that.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 01:14:38 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by achiral:
lisae, could you please explain the context, strife, personal angst behind your photo Monument To Lust? thank you |
I've never said I'm an artist. I have a degree in Physics and I'm a freelance 3D animator, doing a course in animation for games.
I have a lot of respect for people who are a lot freer in their ability to express themselves than I am, and I like to show it.
Message edited by author 2003-02-13 13:16:18. |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 01:16:17 PM · #35 |
| Sorry, but a bad image, produced by an artist as such or not is still a bad image. Both of the photographs provided were bad snapshots. Dosen't mean the photographer hasn't produced some excellent work, just that I don't care for those two images... |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 01:19:11 PM · #36 |
The first image does nothing to me. It doesn't express anyhing special, could have been taken at three high in a block in Amstelveen. It completely fails to communicate what Gordon quoted and even after reading that I fail to get it.
The other photo shown in her profile does a much better job at that. That one communicates a lot.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 02:31:57 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by lisae:
I think most of what you need to appreciate this photo is contained in the passage Gordon quoted:
"a view from the outside looking in, yet unlike photo-journalism, her images reveal a rare intimacy, opening a door onto a domestic reality usually hidden from our eyes" |
What's also interesting are the western influences it shows, like a bottle of pepsi and so on that while unremarkable to us, would have been hard to find 10 years ago in this sort of location. I think the point of this and the other pictures in the series are they give a window into life in China, at a very personal level, that I certainly haven't had the opportunity to experience first hand. That makes them interesting, compeling and perhaps slightly voyueristic.
I have to admit to being interested by these pictures more than something which I'd consider similar like 'The Americans' by Robert Frank which seems to be considered a classic contemporary ( I don't know if you can be both at the same time, but..) photographic book. The main reason it doesnt' have much impact for me is I can look around and see much the same images - which is not the case with these pictures. Though saying that, I'm going to have another go at liking Frank's work as there's an exhibition just opening in Austin this weekend.
It is also worth noting the comments from the judges that they were looking for documentary style photography, although the prize aims to cover '... the most significant contribution to the medium of photography over the past year and aims to recognise a wide range of work including photojournalism, documentary, fashion and fine art photography...'
Message edited by author 2003-02-13 15:06:17. |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 02:43:52 PM · #38 |
I like the way this photo was just randomly judged as a '4' without giving any thought to its context. DPC seems to have that effect on people. Everyone here wants to look at a photo and then give it a rating... sad...
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 02:46:37 PM · #39 |
| in my opinion, this is a pretty useless dicussion and reminds me of my time as an english major in college (and why i simply HAD to switch majors.) It all comes down to what kind of critic each individual is. Some care about a work being autonomous and able to stand on it's own, while others concentrate on it's relevance to history or to the artist's own life and experiences. There are endless debates over the meaning of any form of art. Is the "meaning" of a photograph what the photographer intended or is it out of their hands once they submit it to the outside world, who will think what they want of it based on their own lives, opinions, and ideas? In my opinion, it's a useless struggle that will never be agreed upon. Certainly people will take your art in a variety of different ways regardless of what you meant by it, even if you go to the trouble of attaching long documents to your photo trying to explain it. Most often, however, the documents attached to pieces of art that explain it's meaning and merit are just the opinion of a critic that liked the work. I think it's a lot of bullshit and the most important thing is that the artist themselves like what they have created (unless it is commercial work for a job such as advertising). If their audience likes it or hates it that's just fine. Personally, I don't find any of the citibank work impressive, but I in no way have the right to take the title of "art" away from them. Everything can be art. If anything, we learn what kind of critics the citibank people are. And I HATE citibank. I guess they have similar differences to me in the way they choose art and the way they choose to conduct business. Sorry for the rant, but I had a very very bad experience with them recently. Nobody says you have to like anything, plus our opinions here don't even count, we haven't schmoozed enough yet. |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 03:11:50 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I like the way this photo was just randomly judged as a '4' without giving any thought to its context. DPC seems to have that effect on people. Everyone here wants to look at a photo and then give it a rating... sad... |
That is quite a superficial and wrong characterization in my opinion. The fact that we are discussing this image in DPC lends itself to using a DPC shorthand. If we were discussing this at PhotoBlink or FotoFanatic or someplace else, we would use other terms.
I happen to think that most of us here are a lot more sophisticated and capable than jim setzler or lisae seem to give us credit for in this thread.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 03:21:10 PM · #41 |
The point I try to make here is that non-challenge photos should not really be judges as if they were in some themed challenge... simple enuff...
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 03:21:40 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I like the way this photo was just randomly judged as a '4' without giving any thought to its context. DPC seems to have that effect on people. Everyone here wants to look at a photo and then give it a rating... sad... |
That is quite a superficial and wrong characterization in my opinion. The fact that we are discussing this image in DPC lends itself to using a DPC shorthand. If we were discussing this at PhotoBlink or FotoFanatic or someplace else, we would use other terms.
I happen to think that most of us here are a lot more sophisticated and capable than jim setzler or lisae seem to give us credit for in this thread. |
agreed
oh and it's John Setzler, not Jim
Message edited by author 2003-02-13 15:22:24.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 03:29:50 PM · #43 |
wasn't this citibank thing a contest too? it's a "winner".. so it had to be compared to other stuff.. and in that sense.. if that pic won, it means it was "better" than something else.. I personally dont like the photo, it doesn't affect me one bit. But it can just as easily be amazing to someone else's eyes, so i wont say "it's a bad photo" .. just that i dont personally like it..
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 03:39:53 PM · #44 |
| I think it is a contest very different from dpchallenge. They are looking at photojournalism shots that describe the photographer's surroundings. I think it is a very good shot for what they were looking for in this contest. Would probably not get a 1 on dpchallenge. |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 03:42:18 PM · #45 |
I think it is completely fair and reasonable to comment on 'art' using the DPC terms such as "I'd give it a 4".
This thread reminds me of the controversy over the idiotic Canadian government paying over $1 million for the painting (found in a warehouse) "Voice of Fire". I'd give it a 1.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 04:09:28 PM · #46 |
I should not have posted to this thread... sorry if i offended anyone..
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 04:21:48 PM · #47 |
Well, I think Lisa, Gordon, and others have put forth a great debate which was very thought provoking for me. I think it is important as photographers to consider photographs from different contexts. Here's an example regarding music. I have a friend of mine who is in a jazz band and they are all excellent musicians. I don't particularily care for most jazz music, at least for my everyday listening, but occasionally I will go and watch my friend's band play and really enjoy it. This is because I am there live, and, most importantly, I appreciate their incredible talent. It's a different context and that makes all of the difference. I would rate the music very high even though it isn't my thing. I didn't have the same appreciation for jazz music until I heard it many times and gave it some thought. As a whole, I enjoy my friend's music but I didn't think every song was of equal quality, some songs were phenomenal and some were ordinary. Photography and all other art is the same way. This photographer in question may very well be extremely talented but I don't know that. I only have a couple of photos to go by for now and some background information and so far I find them only ordinary. I appreciate the background information but I am unimpressed by how they are represented photographically. But that's just me, of course. If I saw more of their photography I might enjoy much of it, I don't know.
We are talking about context but we can't assume that everyone here is voting in the same context, which is the personally apealling wow factor. I personally have voted very highly for images that I felt were of great quality even though I didn't care for the subject matter or didn't care for them visually. The primary difference between the photos here at DPC and those in galleries is that we can't read the photo information and we are viewing only one photo at a time by an unknown photographer. We have the theme and the photo but we are still able to consider the photos in many different ways and judge them similarily to the way we would in a gallery. Photography is still photography and we all apply our different contexts to them. People here shouldn't be lumped into one group of voters.
T
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 04:22:40 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Gracious:
If I took this picture, I'd have thrown it away. |
LOL. Me too. I guess that is why I will never be rich.. Hmm. Let me see if I can find a few old snapshots taken when I was a child.. ah.. here's one.. I think I'll group it together with some others and give it a snappy freudian title. Maybe then I can get a gallery to be interested in showing them as art.
;/
Sorry.. don't mean to sound so sarcastic. I guess to each his own.
I am not closed minded.. just think anyone could pull that off, and yet because they have a popular or famous name, it is called art. Not the first time I guess. |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 04:24:57 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by clues56:
I think it is a contest very different from dpchallenge. They are looking at photojournalism shots that describe the photographer's surroundings. I think it is a very good shot for what they were looking for in this contest. Would probably not get a 1 on dpchallenge. |
Although the contest is different from DPC, doesn't mean we can overlook characteristics in composition, exposure, etc.
Sometimes here on DPC, I get the feeling looking at a submission, that the photographer participated in a scavenger hunt. That is, it meets the challenge, but not in a way that combines art and technique.
My point is, just because it is a photojournalistic image doesn't bar the photographer from incorportating principles of photography.
By the way...I think this is a good discussion. It helps each of us define our own ideas of art. It's quite stimulating actually.
But of course I'm right....lol...:-p
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 04:42:11 PM · #50 |
Haha!
This entire thread describes exactly to me what I've always thought of arts in general (being a science-oriented person myself) - It all comes down to a matter of personal taste.
And like my momma always said, "Taste is something you can never discuss".
In fact, its because of this eternal controversy in the perception of arts that I've decided to pursue a career in science...because in my world, two plus two will always equal 4, and not 5 because Picasso said so.
It's a little off topic, but I just had to say it.
I just think this discussion should not be taken so seriously.
Calaille.
Message edited by author 2003-02-13 16:43:45. |
|
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 07:20:07 PM EDT.
