| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/19/2006 08:53:15 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That's assuming that as someone simply looking at an image, I can discern "defect" from "intent". Unless otherwise noted by the photographer, I will assume that all was done intentionally. |
I am agreeing with you -- assume any effect is intentional, and then add how you feel it contibutes to or detracts from the image. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 10:17:14 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by Tycho:
Why should [fine art] photographers be exempt from expectation of technical excellence? |
I don't believe that anyone has indicated that this should be the case. "Technical excellence" is just as subjective as "fine art." Technical excellence may be defined differently by some photographers as well. Grain, motion blur, focus, tonality, and a host of other technical aspects of a fine art image may be use to contribute to an idea. It's not considered to be a 'mistake' when used this way.
Just as a stock photographer may use perfect light, perfect focus, and perfect sharpness to create an excellent stock image, a fine art photographer may use grain, blur, and non-standard lighting to create a mood that is 'different' from normal expectations.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 12:33:30 AM · #203 |
It is heartwarming to find such wonderful discourse. Since this is a subject that is important to all who handle a camera please allow a side presentations which addresses some of the points that have fallen under consideration.
The serious students of life always try to find purpose in their endeavors. Their creations are like their signature at the very moment of their birth. The conscious one's forever seek to expand and tomorrow will find them somewhere else that differs greatly from their current place. Some are so well constituted that they follow a linear progression of amazing improvement until they reach their goal. Others, like most of us, zig-zag our ways and often do complete circles ending up where we once started and with no goal reached. But the fun and experience is in the journey. This applies to all the arts as well as anything that requires the use of self expression. We then find arguments to justify our current standing only to refute them in their near future.
Now, photography, like a diamond, has many facets. You have the recorder of nature and events, the commercial, the artistic, the candid shooter. Well, we can go on and on. Personally, you can show me any good efforts and I will appreciate them, however, images that contain fellow humans invariably have a different and deeper effect. This is easily explained by the experience of the human's emotional spectrum. While a sunset is beautiful, it can only affect us but so much, but a child sensing glee can run deeper into our psychic.
Here Gordon looks back and finds the brush image boring or trite. Well, no need to compare a brush to images with human beings, but personally, I also enjoy the brush image. Why? Simple: it appeals to the ethereal and mystical side of our nature. It touches lightly on the world of fantasy. The popularity of this image has more to do with the hidden feelings that this image arouses than its technical merit.
You will find that in our supposed growing up we are required to make decisions and then how well versed are we to make the correct ones, ie, what to keep and what to discard. It is easy to inflate our egos and then to build logical structures to defend our position but through my life's journey, and I have been around, I find that those many who masterfully try to elucidate their feelings and positions are indeed furthest away from themselves and the truth. They are replacing true feelings with fact and logical sequences which are required to make sense. Most of their original meaning is lost or covered with salt or syrup.
Yet, we find it entertaining to explain where we are in our trip if only to validate our current convictions. My object here is that what you find trite and boring today may have served you once or may serve you again in the future. Again, what is trite and boring to you may be viewed as valuable by others. Holder of either position can not said to be superior or inferior.
A broad viewpoint serves us better because it entails more understanding. The more you focus into one corner, the rest of the room becomes out of focus and out of mind. This is not to say that we should not seek a definte direction. We should, but always be aware that there are other choices that we could explore and are being explored by others. Who can judge the best vantage point?
Carry on.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 00:40:33. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 10:14:49 AM · #204 |
| Excellent post, Daniel - thank you! |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 10:34:54 AM · #205 |
I don't particularly disagree with Daniel's post - but I think for growth to occur, we have to at least attempt that discrimination. Temporary satisfaction with an achievement is vitial - it would be terrible to dismiss or be dissatisfied with creations, all the time at the point of creation. But conversely, if you are supremely satisfied and accepting of all that you've achieved or don't try to recognise and follow growth, then growth doesn't happen.
In many ways I think I have to move on from what I have done before by finding the dissatisfaction within it, otherwise I would creatively die. The fact is, my interests have moved, shifted focus. The things that might have given me satisfaction before leave me empty, uninspired now.
Familiarity, as always, breeds contempt.
But the underlying point is true. We are all at different points along our journey. Which, rolling back to the original point, makes it valuable for the photographer to provide some indication of their place in that journey, to the person who plans to give a supportive, educational and valuable critique.
That gets to the root point of the critique club. Is it to critique for the advantage of the photographer, to critique for the advantage of the critiquer, or for the reader of the critiques ? While there can be some overlap, the focus for each audience can and should be different.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 10:39:28 AM · #206 |
Techo, I hope you realize that you and I are mostly in agreement.
I think this discussion has gone very well considering that "art" is poorly defined and means different things to different people. I think some have the impression that I or some other art-pushers don't think that pleasure is good enough, that a picture needs "deep meaning." But I don't believe that at all. Pleasure is a perfectly valid response.
But art is like ribs. It *enhances* pleasure. Sure, it might please you to see the same old sunset again, but in a very comfortable way. Rollercoaster enthusiasts understand that a Hole Nuther Level of pleasure is achieved when the experience is *not* comfortable... when *excitement* is added to the equation. It is this excitement that I want to be profound, NOT the meaning. The way to achieve profound excitement, is to present a surprising image. Remember the surprise you felt the first time you saw an Absolut ad? Same thing... a conceptual sizzle to wake up your neurons. There are many, many ways to achieve this effect... and that is the art I mean. It is a huge, broad topic that touches every single genre and mode of photography.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 12:38:46 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
...the root point of the critique club. Is it to critique for the advantage of the photographer, to critique for the advantage of the critiquer, or for the reader of the critiques ? While there can be some overlap, the focus for each audience can and should be different. |
I don't think it matters much, for the purpose of this discussion, whether a skilled carpenter makes a table or a poet makes a poem, even when the product of their respective skills has been commissioned. While expectations of clients or readers may vary from those who conceive, create and shape tables and poems, I'd like to also point out that there is more implied agreement on the matter than there's variance.
All involved expect their table to be sound, made of wood that isn't green, well joined and, if possible, not with one or five legs, so it won't wobble or be toppled by a sneeze. They would expect a poetry with nouns and verbs in it, not just adjectives, and that the parts relate, forming a whole, for much the same reasons, no?
So when you say "the focus for each audience can and should be different", I won't argue (coz there's truth in this), except to say that I'd prefer to get the hay in before the first snow, instead of considering a conflicting pattern of geese.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 12:40:07.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 01:17:30 PM · #208 |
Critiques that address the photographic merit of submissions is really all that should be expected at DPC.
Most photographers here are amateurs and many know very little about the innards of photography. That is what they need moreso than philosophic discourses on 'art' and intention. Those they take up with the critic when they are ready.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 13:18:02.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 01:42:03 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
...Most photographers here are amateurs and many know very little about the innards of photography. That is what they need moreso than philosophic discourses on 'art' and intention. Those they take up with the critic when they are ready. |
There are times when it helps to think a little before acting, so that those who are somewhat familiar with the geography do not go their separate way, leaving those without a map to cliffs and quicksand.
This, in my book, is more practical than 'philosophical'.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 13:42:31.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 02:49:38 PM · #210 |
I wonder if it's occurred to anyone that we might incorporate TWO CC boxes to check? You could check one or the other, requesting a technical crit (which is what I think most people are seeking) or an "artistic" (for lack of a better word) crit. Possibly the CC members could specify which type of critique they wish to give (including both) and there could be two separate queues...
Robt. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 02:55:16 PM · #211 |
| Sorry for the OT but......Gordon, those two shots...the little girl and the what looks like a weding party are great. I agree, they are much more interesting to me than the still life type shots. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 02:56:10 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I wonder if it's occurred to anyone that we might incorporate TWO CC boxes to check? You could check one or the other, requesting a technical crit (which is what I think most people are seeking) or an "artistic" (for lack of a better word) crit. Possibly the CC members could specify which type of critique they wish to give (including both) and there could be two separate queues...
Robt. |
It did occur to me....and then I thought, that's what the photographer's comment section could be used for. For example, "I climbed two mountains and endured great danger to get this image, I know it has technical flaws but I'd like to know if it has "artistic" impact." Or, "I'm just starting out and I know the subject may be unappealing, I'm most interested in feedback on the technical issues." Isn't that part of what's being asked of those who check the little box for an "in-depth critique"? |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 04:11:27 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
It did occur to me....and then I thought, that's what the photographer's comment section could be used for. For example, "I climbed two mountains and endured great danger to get this image, I know it has technical flaws but I'd like to know if it has "artistic" impact." Or, "I'm just starting out and I know the subject may be unappealing, I'm most interested in feedback on the technical issues." Isn't that part of what's being asked of those who check the little box for an "in-depth critique"? |
And now, the circle has been completed :)
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 04:20:00 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I wonder if it's occurred to anyone that we might incorporate TWO CC boxes to check? You could check one or the other, requesting a technical crit (which is what I think most people are seeking) or an "artistic" (for lack of a better word) crit. Possibly the CC members could specify which type of critique they wish to give (including both) and there could be two separate queues...
Robt. |
Wow. I guess I'm just talking into the wind. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 04:41:02 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I wonder if it's occurred to anyone that we might incorporate TWO CC boxes to check? You could check one or the other, requesting a technical crit (which is what I think most people are seeking) or an "artistic" (for lack of a better word) crit. Possibly the CC members could specify which type of critique they wish to give (including both) and there could be two separate queues...
Robt. |
Please no. I don't want to change the site. I want to break down the very distinction you are suggesting we institutionalize. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 04:46:23 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
And now, the circle has been completed :) |
Some like it hot...
Peas porridge hot,
Peas porridge cold,
Some like hot, some like it cold
Some like it in the pot nine days old...
:-)
And posthumous, as the circle closes I think you're still well within the loop. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 05:45:33 PM · #217 |
I'm glad this conversation has not only survived, but prospered. I think it's important for the diversity of this site, which I both love and owe a debt to, that the intellectualisation of photography is encouraged and not swaped by the strife for numbers.
Gordon's posting of his four images brings a point to mind that has bothered ne here for a while, which is that I fail to find almost any photographic merit in set-up, posed or studio-based photography generally. Still life, for example, seems to me purely a documentary record of a certain conjunction of subjects, tightly and absolutely controlled by the photographer. The 'achievement', it seems to me, is entirely in the realms of lighting design, the plastic arts (the arrangement of physical constituents), and some basic elements of composition that apply as much to interior design as to any other 'field'. This, I think, is not best represented by the photograph, but by being in the same room as the object(s) - which is as much to say it is, actually, sculpture.
Or, in the case of portraiture, it is performance. Make-up, lighting, physical positioning of body, expression of face ... well, that sounds more like theatre or dance to my mind.
Landscape photography likewise has a companion drawback - that it is largely second best to actually being there: partly because the impact of landscape is in the movement of light, the progression of mood, and an instant severed from that continuum represents only ... what? A pickling of the experience? Having only marginally more ability to communicate that the returning holiday-maker with his 'you should have seen it!' exclamations.
Now, I would not argue that these areas of photography have no place - the regard in which they're held is evident, and though it might be possible to fool all of the people all of the time (in the worlds of a great man, 'how would they know?'), I'm not prepared to accept that this is the case here.
Photography, however, has a power to produce something that no other art can form: out of its immediacy, its often observed slice-of-life quality, can come a conjunction of elements that can never be demonstrated with the same impact as can the camera. In the translation of one viewpoint - and in the transition of light through a lens we get as close as we can to a singular point in time and space - of a three'four-simensional world into a permanently recorded two-dimensional image, we are given the chance to combine the qualities of the graphic nature of our environment with the instant interaction of the humanity which, arguably, should be our only subject. To express what we are, what we feel, what we observe, what we suspect, what we love, what we hate, what ...ever in a way that can be done only photographically, we must combine the 'reality' of the world around us, with the equal reality of the people that inhabit it.
Almost a manifesto for street photography - but it could also be read as a manifesto for any kind of live-action photography, really.
 It could be sports photography ...
 It could not feature the human at all ...
 It could be animal photography ...
 And it could be a scene selected from a grand urban landscape ... if I'm allowed to blow my own trumpet, a little.
But the real relevance is here: when it's done this way, when a real masterful shutter-finger and eye get to grips with it ...
... it doesn't necessarily get voted down here at DPC.
Three more images that, I think, prove that point:
 
and (I know, me again, but I've put a lot of effort into this post so you're going to have to live with it ...
I believe we should be ancouraging people here - the ambitious people, thos who want more than just better family snapshots from their photography - to aim to be the next Cartier-Bresson, rather than the next (insert name of famous landscape, fashion, or advertising photographer here). And I believe that because I believe the photographs of Cartier-Bresson have infinitely more value than any landscape, fashion or advertising photograph I've ever seen.
Ed |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 05:49:46 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I wonder if it's occurred to anyone that we might incorporate TWO CC boxes to check? You could check one or the other, requesting a technical crit (which is what I think most people are seeking) or an "artistic" (for lack of a better word) crit. Possibly the CC members could specify which type of critique they wish to give (including both) and there could be two separate queues...
Robt. |
Wow. I guess I'm just talking into the wind. |
Oh I know that feeling. To be fair now that Robert mentioned it the idea will get traction. :P |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 07:09:05 PM · #219 |
I think most people are simply pleased to get a critique at all.
And thanks to being spurred on by this thread, I've done nine in the past couple of days.
I hope everyone else who is contributing to this thread is doing lots of critiques as well.
;>)
Alice |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 07:27:00 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by e301:
...... - to aim to be the next Cartier-Bresson, rather than the next (insert name of famous landscape, fashion, or advertising photographer here). And I believe that because I believe the photographs of Cartier-Bresson have infinitely more value than any landscape, fashion or advertising photograph I've ever seen.
Ed |
What?!!!! Even Ansel Adams?!!!
Me too. A lot of Adams's stuff is not spectacular. It just has his name on it. And wasn't even 'finished' by him.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 07:32:18 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by e301:
...... - to aim to be the next Cartier-Bresson, rather than the next (insert name of famous landscape, fashion, or advertising photographer here). And I believe that because I believe the photographs of Cartier-Bresson have infinitely more value than any landscape, fashion or advertising photograph I've ever seen.
Ed |
What?!!!! Even Ansel Adams?!!!
Me too. A lot of Adams's stuff is not spectacular. It just has his name on it. And wasn't even 'finished' by him. |
That's funny, given that I don't think HCB ever did his own printing - at least not for any of his 'valuable' work. |
|
|
|
10/20/2006 07:34:33 PM · #222 |
The point was the AA stuff is overrated.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 07:53:16 PM · #223 |
Even if you think Adams is overrated (and I'll not debate that point from either side) there is great value in my mind's eye to landscape photography in the recording of time. What Adams saw in his time no longer exists. What we record today won't exist in 10 or 15 years. I have a small tract of trees I love that won't be there when I return to this area in three years. I will, however, have my picture(s) of them and the feeling that they invoke for me.
Mr 301's comments are how he sees photography, and merit consideration by anyone wishing, as he puts it, to take more than simply better pictures for the family album. I don't believe he's "dissing" (I have no idea how to spell that word) any particular form of photography, just saying that's not what the essence is to him and putting forth his arguments to that effect.
This thread has provided a wealth of wonderful discourse. And as I sit on a couple of steeenkin' scores here at DPC, it has dawned on me that I see what I see, and I like what I like. I'll never be the next Cartier-Bresson, nor even the next e301, but I more fully appreciate what I like to do, as opposed to what the voters at DPC like to see. And I also fully appreciate that it ain't art, but it is to some extent an artistic expression if one is to give wide berth to the term.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 08:55:56 PM · #224 |
In defense of landscapes: mountains and trees have a different sense of time, a much longer sense, but as Melethia says they are still subject to it. But there are other layers of time to be captured as well, like the season and the time of the day. To be honest, I'm bored by most landscapes as well, but I think it's because so many photographers choose to be a weak substitute of being there instead of a Point Of View.
In defense of staged photography: As with landscapes, the staged photograph can be exactly as  e301 describes, but it doesn't have to be. In order to be alive, the photo must be aware of its stagedness and interact with it. Then there is a mystery for the viewer to explore. How aware is the model? How planned were the elements? Even without a model, the staged photograph forces its subjects to be juxtaposed with a precision not possible if it were merely an installation, or by using extreme lighting and angles can force the subjects to "phase" between representation and abstraction. A staged photograph is like nothing so much as a poem. And poetry is a valid art, because the poet simulates the dynamism of a street photograph by creating a chaos within himself before he controls it.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2006 09:31:21 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by e301:
...... - to aim to be the next Cartier-Bresson, rather than the next (insert name of famous landscape, fashion, or advertising photographer here). And I believe that because I believe the photographs of Cartier-Bresson have infinitely more value than any landscape, fashion or advertising photograph I've ever seen.
Ed |
What?!!!! Even Ansel Adams?!!!
Me too. A lot of Adams's stuff is not spectacular. It just has his name on it. And wasn't even 'finished' by him. |
That's funny, given that I don't think HCB ever did his own printing - at least not for any of his 'valuable' work. |
Many well-known photographers don't print their own work.
Message edited by author 2006-10-20 21:31:57. |
|
