| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2003 06:26:01 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Artist does not make plans to make an ART ! That comes without intention,by accident,and not on weekly basis! |
WOAH! I gotta say, pitsaman - you have no idea what you're talking about. SOOOOO much planning goes into the making of fine art. Do you think artists just sit on their butt all day until a wacky idea hits them and then they just slap a bunch of stuff together until they get the feeling that they're finished? Art is no accident and it is nothing if not intentional. Art carries with it the all weight of intent and calibration synonymous with a tactical US military strike - and just like the US military, art hits its target just as many times as it misses.
And artists work hard, have deadlines they have to meet, and often have to produce in mass quantities just to keep afloat.
You are entitled to your preference in photographic styles, but please don't flatter yourself in keeping that preference. And at the very least, don't make assumptions purely as a measure to support your preferences - it's quite rude, to say the least. |
|
|
|
11/30/2003 06:49:02 PM · #27 |
| Touche - ChipsDitchman for president (or PM if you lived in the UK)! ; ) |
|
|
|
11/30/2003 06:51:20 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by darcy:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Artist does not make plans to make an ART ! That comes without intention,by accident,and not on weekly basis! |
WOAH! I gotta say, pitsaman - you have no idea what you're talking about. SOOOOO much planning goes into the making of fine art. Do you think artists just sit on their butt all day until a wacky idea hits them and then they just slap a bunch of stuff together until they get the feeling that they're finished? Art is no accident and it is nothing if not intentional. Art carries with it the all weight of intent and calibration synonymous with a tactical US military strike - and just like the US military, art hits its target just as many times as it misses.
And artists work hard, have deadlines they have to meet, and often have to produce in mass quantities just to keep afloat.
You are entitled to your preference in photographic styles, but please don't flatter yourself in keeping that preference. And at the very least, don't make assumptions purely as a measure to support your preferences - it's quite rude, to say the least. |
Very well said, darcy. As an illustrator and portrait artist I have always been fighting this mentallity from those who think it is easy or that ideas somehow just comes to me with little forethought. I also create logos and other graphic illustrations where the end result is intended to look simple and concise. Most people cannot undestand the time I spend thinking of the idea and exploring the numerous possibilities on the way to arriving at an appropriate image. Being consistently creative in any endeaver often takes a lot more work than people realize. And BTW, creativity is often required on a daily basis.
T
|
|
|
|
11/30/2003 07:18:14 PM · #29 |
> darcy and timj351
While I have no argument with your counters vs. pitsaman's somewhat crude generalisation, I feel there may just be an ounce of truth hidden here, you missed and he 'may' have intended.
Some (very committed) artists feel, that the product of their efforts is something akin to an esoteric document (a poet's work) or piece (a sculptor's, say) which he has not consciously created by expressing what someone might call an 'ego', but instead that it is a latent product of a mind (or heart, if you like) at play.
When this is the case, neither product nor process are pre-meditated, i.e. 'planned'. The author of the piece, instead, acts as a vessel through which a particular essence flows.
Viewed from this perspective, pitsaman would be quite right in what he said.
Message edited by author 2003-11-30 19:18:47. |
|
|
|
11/30/2003 08:11:35 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ronners:
...excellence is surely a better goal than diversity. |
This is a matter of philosophical and emotional opinion on which we seem to disagree.
I believe the increasing specialization of people into specific tasks/skills is one of the truly de-humanizing elements of the industrial/technical revolution, making workers into highly programmable robots (who are then replaced by mechano-electronic ones as quickly as possible). (c.f. Metropolis by Fritz Lang, Modern Times by Charlie Chaplin, the eponymous play R.U.R. by Karel Capek, or your local Ford assembly line.)
Even (maybe especially) scientists are forced away from cross-discipline studies; "the modern [specialist] knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything there is to know about nothing at all."
If I'm a working photographer, a level of expertise is necessary to satisfy the paying customer, but as a hobbyist or dedicated amateur I think it is every bit equally as valid to continually experiment and expand one's range of skills/knowledge, as it is to hone one's technique beyond a fundamental familiarity and rudimentary competence.
Message edited by author 2003-11-30 20:15:37. |
|
|
|
11/30/2003 08:40:28 PM · #31 |
|
|
|
11/30/2003 10:45:10 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by ronners:
It's very likely that dabbling in different areas allows you to pick up different skills, so in many respects you probably have the right idea. I think that it all comes down to making photos that you are happy with. I find that my results get worse when I try things other than landscapes of architecture, but at the same time I find that there's plenty of opportunity for trying out new things within those more limited areas of focus. A lot of what drives me is seeing great work by others, and do date (and probably forever) I'm only really moved by landscape work, so that's a goal I'm trying to achieve for myself. |
That I can relate more to - I'm not moved so much by portraits.. and they'll probably be one of the last things I try to learn to do (possibly because they can be difficult, as well). But, I will eventually get around to it as I think that being well-rounded is an important quality. As long as I enjoy what I'm doing, that's good enough for me.. although it's certainly much easier to enjoy when you're a bit good at it :x |
|
|
|
12/01/2003 01:10:31 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ronners:
...excellence is surely a better goal than diversity. |
I believe the increasing specialization of people into specific tasks/skills is one of the truly de-humanizing elements of the industrial/technical revolution, |
You have to remember that I'm talking about photography as one single facet of a multi-disciplined life. A diverse life will indeed lead to a better realisation of our art, for as I've noted many times, influence is as important as any other motivating factor. I would therefore have to agree that all encompassing specialisation is a bad thing.
On the subject of excellence, however, I still believe that the motivation to do something well is surely more valid than a motivation to do everything. Take travel for example. I'd like to go everywhere at least once, but it's likely that I'd only be inclined to revisit some of those places.
Further to the remainder of your post, a world where everyone participates in every activity on an average level would surely be much duller than a world of artists and heroes. It is your duty to be the best you can be.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2003 01:14:49 AM · #34 |
| I think some people work in each way. And I may indeed have my areas of excellence, just not in photography .... |
|
|
|
12/01/2003 01:17:30 PM · #35 |
nature strives for diversity - excellence is merely a bi-product of that struggle.
now, i am in no way drawing a comparison to you, ronners, but the nazis thought excellence was a better goal than diverstiy as well.
my point is that such a philosophy is not only dangerous, but also inharently flawed. |
|
|
|
12/01/2003 01:37:08 PM · #36 |
The idea that striving for something more than a superficial attempt at a topic, style or subject in photography is akin to nazism is quite amusing.
Godwin was right, as usual.
Breadth is good, exploring new things, techniques and ideas are certainly valuable - but to really produce good photography I'd suggest that it takes more than a week of trying at a particular style - maybe a few months or years will allow a good grounding in the basics as a launchpad to doing something interesting - a week isn't going to do much.
However ,I think Ronners point only would be valid if a photographer saw dpc as their one and only source of inspiration or the only venue that they took pictures for - that would indeed be a shamefully limited approach to the venture.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2003 02:07:44 PM · #37 |
I disagree with you that studio shots are more demanding. This is probably not the case for everyone, but it certainly is for me. I find studio shots to be MUCH easier because I can control every aspect of the photo in the studio. In the field there are usually many factors that are just plain out of the photographer’s control making it more difficult to get the shot that you have in your mind and are trying to create. I think what is difficult or easy varies from person to person since everyone has their own particular strengths and weaknesses.
As far as stock photography goes, I tend to agree that there seems to be a lot of winners that I would say are stock-type shots. If that’s what people here like, then where’s the problem with it? I entered a shot this week in the smell challenge that I thought was an excellent shot. It makes me laugh every time I see it. For whatever reason, it is clear that the people here didn’t get it. I don’t have a problem with that, in fact it is what I expected. I entered the picture anyway because it was the one that I really liked and to me it fits the challenge as well as the best of them. If you are here to win ribbons and you notice that people like stock photography then make stock photographs and make them fit the challenges very obviously (leave nothing to the imagination). If you want to do your own thing do it and don’t let it get to you if others don’t get it.
In response to Ronners, I agree with you very strongly. I am completely unmoved by so many of the pictures in the various challenges. Though they are technically excellent, they are just boring and contrived IMO. The one thing I do like about the challenges quite a bit is that the variance in topic does stimulate people to try new things instead of being stuck in a rut of the same old thing over and over again. I agree that the critique club should be the main focus of the site. Back when I participated more frequently here I tried to write a detailed critique for all the pictures I commented on (I tried to focus on quality more than quantity and spent a lot of time looking at photos and writing meaningful comments). I eventually got burnt out because I didn’t feel like I was receiving the same from anyone else.
Greg
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 04:24:19 AM · #38 |
Greg,
You made excellent points, particularly about field photography.
Even though I agree with you that on this site if you want to win ribbons you need to shoot studio stock images. First, let's not kid ourselves. Anyone who submits a photograph wants to win. But what us "non stock" photographers say is, "I have no desire." I'm certainly not going to start shooting stock pictures, so I can win some lousy ribbon that nobody really cares about except us. But how many people on this site have gone down that road? I would guess that there are quite a few who now spend most of their time doing setup shots when early on they were doing other types of photography. That's just not right.
I'm so tired of everyone saying, "Well, you can't do anything about it, it's not practical." That is just so untrue. The ogranizers of this site could easily use standard photography categories like Portraits, Animals, Photojournalism, Macro, and.....tada "STILL LIFE!" Some challenges could be open to all categories, but then others would be open to one category, or maybe two or three.
I mean, come on this makes total sense. Pitting Macros and Still Lifes against each other in a soft focus challenge, or Landscapes and Photojournalism against one another in a "Tallest" challenge type of thing just oozes with excellent competition written all over it.
Message edited by author 2003-12-04 04:27:35. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 04:56:18 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
Greg,
Even though I agree with you that on this site if you want to win ribbons you need to shoot studio stock images. |
Nonsense, just look at the winners in book titles, grace, sacred places, infinite etc etc challenges and you will see this is not true. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 12:30:04 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by willem:
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
Greg,
Even though I agree with you that on this site if you want to win ribbons you need to shoot studio stock images. |
Nonsense, just look at the winners in book titles, grace, sacred places, infinite etc etc challenges and you will see this is not true. |
Nonsense! Come on, you can argue all the qualatative issues all you want, but this is concrete. The last 10 challenges, 18 out of 30 ribbons were clearly stock photography. 2 more could be argued that they are, but I left them off. That's 60% of the last 30 ribbon winners.
Go to://www.digitalphotocontest.com/factsnstats.asp
Their statistics show that only 12.5% of their total submissions are stock "Still Life" shots, yet on this site 60% of the winners at Still Life shots?
It's scary to think this is the type of attitude that is judging our photography.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 01:08:47 PM · #41 |
Now read your own text again.
You first word it like you only got a chance to win if you are shooting studio stock images.
And now you already admit that 40% is non stock.
But as you say, I probably can argue all I want, there is no way to convince you, so I will shut up now. |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 01:30:34 PM · #42 |
People keep using the term, "stock photography" and when they are referring to studio shots alone, they are WRONG.
A stock photograph and be ANYTHING. Landscape, people, animals, still life, artsy.. what ever!
The stock photograph argument is getting old. A successful stock photograph is required only to be a technically good photograph, appealing to a large audience, and fit what a buyer is looking for.
There is nothing wrong with stock photography. Many people make their livings from these.
Furthermore, unless and until a photographer, or the one who owns the right to such photograph, lists it for sale in a portfolio or other such manner, the image is NOT a stock photograph.
It seems to me that when, in these forums, someone refers to stock photography they are generally referring to a technically sound photograph shot in a studio in which to photographer has every possibility (within his means) to control the environment in which the photograph was taken. That is a very small part of stock photography.
Although I am sure there are some photographers out there whose stock photographs consist solely of these studio shots, there are many many more who have a more diverse portfolio.
Money makes the world go round. If one chooses to create a photograph that is an artistic expression yet not widely accepted or appealing to others, SO WHAT!
I have many artist friends who understand you create some things because you love to, and something's because you have to. If you want to create photographs that have deep meaning but are not necessarily obvious, or technically sound, don't get your feathers ruffled when they do not do well here.
If you want to score better, want to win ribbons you must appeal to a large audience. Remember, people in Masses are not that bright ( no offense.) This just means that some will understand things that others do not and others will understand things that some do not. That is the way of the world.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 01:44:26 PM · #43 |
What I find both puzzling and amusing is how many people seem to pay their money to become members only to come into the forums to tell us how screwed up this whole site and it's premise is :) ..
Why would you spend your money then? Are you such people just masochists? I have to know.
Thanks :)
Message edited by author 2003-12-04 13:45:33.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2003 08:04:48 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
What I find both puzzling and amusing is how many people seem to pay their money to become members only to come into the forums to tell us how screwed up this whole site and it's premise is :) ..
Why would you spend your money then? Are you such people just masochists? I have to know.
Thanks :) |
Maybe becuase we didn't realize how screwed-up it was? |
|
|
|
12/04/2003 08:15:05 PM · #45 |
The funny part is that, in spite of all the bellyaching, this site does offer fun and totally unique avenues towards creativity, unavailable unaware else.
One would have to be pretty dark and bitter to not get anything at all positive out of it. And luckily, no one who's posted to this thread is that ; ) ..
|
|
|
|
12/05/2003 12:41:52 AM · #46 |
| accually whats really funny is that nobody seems to know what "stock photo" accually means.. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 06:45:14 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
accually whats really funny is that nobody seems to know what "stock photo" accually means.. |
enlighten us.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2003 08:04:40 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
Greg,
You made excellent points, particularly about field photography.
Even though I agree with you that on this site if you want to win ribbons you need to shoot studio stock images. First, let's not kid ourselves. Anyone who submits a photograph wants to win. But what us "non stock" photographers say is, "I have no desire." I'm certainly not going to start shooting stock pictures, so I can win some lousy ribbon that nobody really cares about except us. But how many people on this site have gone down that road? I would guess that there are quite a few who now spend most of their time doing setup shots when early on they were doing other types of photography. That's just not right.
|
What I don't get reading this is, when looking at your two entered pictures, they are about the best examples of good stock images that I've seen in a while. Now if what you are complaining about is studio images, then maybe that's a different thing. But good stock images are things like kids having fun, or landscapes with human elements... |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 08:09:15 AM · #49 |
yes,
wwjdwithca's "Swimming is So Relaxing" IS an example of what Could be a successful stock photograph. I could see is used for a resort ad with a caption of something like , "Kid's stay FREE" or something.
Any photo can be a stock photo. Successful stock photos have more strict criteria but, can be any type of photograph.
edited because it's early and my brain has not had enough coffee to spell properly.
Message edited by author 2003-12-05 08:10:18.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2003 03:31:03 PM · #50 |
| It's true, the term "Stock Photo" is being used loosely on this site. More precisely what we are refering to is Still Life photography which are set-up studio shots. Usually they don't have people in them. They are limited to a few objects, and usually have limited color spectrum use as well, so they have excellent contrasts which is what our eyes are attracted to in a photograph. I've just been refering to them as stock because that's what everyone here seems to like to call them. |
|
