| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/20/2008 10:36:30 AM · #76 |
[accidental post; used quote instead of edit]
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 10:38:44. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 10:44:29 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Your reductionist reasoning suggests to me that the only true artist is God (however you choose to define Him/him/her/it). |
No. The ONLY true artist is Picasso. (kidding)
I'm not sure how you unserstood what I said but it's inaccurate.
What I'm separating is an artist from someone (a photographer, in this case) that documents art or a scene.
Many of us here document things...sometimes reality...sometimes art, hopefully, in an artistic way (at the very least). Documenting something artistically, in my mind, doesn'tnecesarrily make me an artist. It could but not often or always.
I hope I didn't mangle my ideas more, with that explaination. lol.
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 11:09:09. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 10:59:59 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by bvy:
Your reductionist reasoning suggests to me that the only true artist is God (however you choose to define Him/him/her/it). |
No. The ONLY true artist is Picasso. (kidding)
I'm not sure how you unserstood what I said but it's inaccurate.
What I'm separating is an artist from someone (a photographer, in this case) that documents art. |
I'll have to agree with  bvy. That's how I felt when I read your post.
You are implying that the universe is art, since you compared it to taking a photograph of a work of art. I don't see the co-relation of taking a photo of a painting vs taking a photo of the stars. How is photographing outer space any different than any other non studio shot? Did the photographer not have to find the photo? Did the photographer not have to decide how to frame it?
Just trying to clarify your post.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 11:27:38 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by jeger:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by bvy:
Your reductionist reasoning suggests to me that the only true artist is God (however you choose to define Him/him/her/it). |
No. The ONLY true artist is Picasso. (kidding)
I'm not sure how you unserstood what I said but it's inaccurate.
What I'm separating is an artist from someone (a photographer, in this case) that documents art. |
I'll have to agree with bvy. That's how I felt when I read your post.
You are implying that the universe is art, since you compared it to taking a photograph of a work of art.Just trying to clarify your post. |
Art is art (whatever art is ?)and a scene is a scene. I'm saying that I as a photographer do not deserve credit for the scene even if rendering it was difficult. Credit me with the rendering...no problem but they are to entirely separate things.
Some of my thoughts stem from the discomfort I get when peoples comments seem to credit me with having something to do with the scene that I have photographed. It's also strange when people comment on elements in particular that they like OR dislike as if I had control over those. Occasionally I play a role on how things get aligned, captured or for having the sense to stop and shoot what others might walk right past...
"What timing, framing, and kudos for having your eyes open."
-a recent comment that I received which rests accurately with the capturing of an image I posted a few days back. I do hope people see that I'm trying to relate this thread in context to myself, how I see things or in trying to make sense of the viewers. As usual, after reading this thread I'm feeling more and more like a Martian here on DPC. How apropo.
My comments here are completely in relation to the way jlanoue is being praised and in no way are a testimony regarding his skill or talent. Maybe I'm mixing apples and oranges...?
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 12:26:56. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 12:16:11 PM · #80 |
| Every time I see his work posted, I can't help but give him an automatic vote of 10. His work is amazing.In fact, I switched over a copy of his Andromeda galaxy to my desktop and periodically open it to view.I only regret that it is in DPC size and not large enough for a decent wallpaper. He is very giving of his knowledge and techniques. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 12:39:40 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by dfstevenson:
Every time I see his work posted, I can't help but give him an automatic vote of 10. His work is amazing.In fact, I switched over a copy of his Andromeda galaxy to my desktop and periodically open it to view.I only regret that it is in DPC size and not large enough for a decent wallpaper. He is very giving of his knowledge and techniques. |
I am sure if you contact him and explain you would like a desktop wallpaper size one he would be happy to help. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 12:41:09 PM · #82 |
Just trying to understand. Are any of these images art?
 Art or just people?
 Art or just a bird?
 Art or just a seascape?
 Art or just a DSO?
 Art or just a landscape?
Is art to be pigeon holed, categorized and restricted or is it up to the individual to decide for themselves?
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 12:48:22. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 01:01:21 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Is art to be pigeon holed, categorized and restricted or is it up to the individual to decide for themselves? |
I am defining it for myself...or trying to. Mostly for sport. It's not something I'm trying be hardcore about.
The first image imo is a photograph of art. The image is well composed but that in itself doesn't make it (the image) art. It's a pretty straightforward rendering of a set-up scene which requires some technique. So to answer your questions, the "or just..." would be my awswers across the board. Composition is and artistic element and so is using a slider in Photoshop to increase the "blue" but combining those elements at any number doesn't make the photographer (or photoshopper) and artist.
I just don't throw the word art around too loosely. I used to but not so much these days. Because something utilizes some technique or skill doesn't necesarily make it art.
[thumb]680331[/thumb]
Just an opinion but I think what most of us do with Photoshop is about as complex as the old Hand Turkey thing we did as kids in grade school.
Ok...ok...ok, it's art, I know but...
None of my images are art.
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 13:23:06. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 01:19:05 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I just don't throw the word art around too loosely. I used to but not so much these days. Because something utilizes some technique or skill doesn't necesarily make it art. |
I gotcha. I respect that. I guess I think we need more art in the world so I am more liberal in how I view and define art for myself. To each their own as the saying goes.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
[thumb]680331[/thumb]
Just an opinion but I think what most of us do with Photoshop is about as complex as the old Hand Turkey thing we did as kids in grade school.
Ok...ok...ok, it's art, I know but... |
:-P Classic! I love it and I would hang it on my wall! |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 01:21:47 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
None of my images are art. |
So you say.
When I look at your portfolio I see a tremendous amount of art. Your images to me are art in the everyday. But that's just me. ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 16:56:50. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 04:55:45 PM · #86 |
Okay, pawdrix, I'll indulge you. Photography is not art. Photographers are not artists. What does that mean? Where does it take us? How does it make us different? What am I likely to do as an "artist" that you won't? Or vice versa? We'll still go on tinkering with our blue sliders, entering challenges, putting pride into whatever you want to call it that we all do here.
My point is, I think we're just quibbling over a definition. It's all semantics. One man's art is another man's -- how'd you put it? -- "rendering." Okay then. Can we all live with that?
Something else I'm not sure we considered: Is art a process or a product? Personally, I think what I do is artistic, but I wouldn't call myself an artist. Artists produce art. The difference between me and you, though, is I look here and often (not always) I do see art. Artists, even. Maybe I'm being modest.
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 17:17:01. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 05:20:00 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Okay, pawdrix, I'll endulge you. Photography is not art. Photographers are not artists. What does that mean? Where does it take us? How does it make us different? |
I didn't say that photography can't be art. Photographers can certainly be artists.
I just don't agree with what most people consider photographic art.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 05:22:59 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Photographers can certainly be artists.
|
But not because they're photographers, right?
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 17:23:11. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 05:46:37 PM · #89 |
What is your definition of art? And don't tell me it's in the eye of the beholder. If that's the case then you would have to agree that a standard number 2 pencil you can find in your local store is art. Would you agree with that? If not then why not?
As for your examples, all the subjects you showed with the except of DSO, you can capture in a unique way. That's the difference. Without choices you can't create something new and you certainly cannot create art. If you could only shoot people, birds, landscapes and seascapes one way and one way only then they too could not reach the level of art.
The reason why an Ansel Adam's landscape is art is because he didn't simply capture what was in front of him but rather the INNER BEAUTY he saw in them. It is in his vision of the landscape he saw with his mind's eye that led to the way he photographed them. Without the presence of an artist, art cannot be created. I content that with astrophotography the artist is missing. There is nothing of the artist to be found within the confines of the photo itself. When we examine an Ansel photograph we can see his imprint, HIS VISION, HIS WAY OF SEEING. That's what makes art.
ETA: Of course just my opinion. :)
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 17:59:19.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 06:06:45 PM · #90 |
See that is just the thing Richard, you can and do capture DSO differently every time. The total number of exposures the filters used to capture the different light spectrum's is very much akin in my opinion to your example of "capture in a unique way" the other images.
You seem to believe that the DSO are static and are not capable of being captured in different ways which could not be further from the truth.
And yes I believe that if someone just loves their #2 pencil and sees beauty and feels emotion by gazing at it then yes it is art. Is that art to me? No. But I would never force my idea of art on anyone just express it like we are doing in this thread.
A far as the artist missing in astrophotography this is where we differ because as you stated about Ansel the same can be said for the astrophotographer. They are making choices about how they intend to shoot and process the object just like Ansel and his beloved landscapes.
ETA: I still contend that art is in the process not the results. (At least for the artist anyway)
:-D
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 18:14:50. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 06:08:28 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by yanko:
The reason why an Ansel Adam's landscape is art is because he didn't simply capture what was in front of him but rather the INNER BEAUTY he saw in them. It is in his vision of the landscape he saw with his mind's eye that led to the way he photographed them. Without the presence of an artist, art cannot be created. I content that with astrophotography the artist is missing. There is nothing of the artist to be found within the confines of the photo itself. When we examine an Ansel photograph we can see his imprint, HIS VISION, HIS WAY OF SEEING. That's what makes art. |
And therein lies the conundrum, for us at DPC:
Shoot the "straight" landscape (or at least make it LOOK like you did) and if it's breathtaking enough (that is to say, if you lucked into the perfect combination of clouds and light and scene) you will be rewarded. But if you dare to MANIPULATE the landscape, to make it conform to your inner vision, you will certainly get a slew of comments that it is "overprocessed", even if in the end you score pretty well...
Excuse the rant, but I printed for the man, and I know what the negatives look like...
R. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 06:09:08 PM · #92 |
OMG!!! Ansel?! Is that you?!!
What are you doing in the backyard of DrAchoo's parents?!
::promptly faints:: |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 06:21:39 PM · #93 |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 06:32:14 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
See that is just the thing Richard, you can and do capture DSO differently every time. The total number of exposures the filters used to capture the different light spectrum's is very much akin in my opinion to your example of "capture in a unique way" the other images.
You seem to believe that the DSO are static and are not capable of being captured in different ways which could not be further from the truth. |
With all due respect you're not understanding my point. You're referring to technical decisions. I'm referring to aesthetic ones. I posted earlier of a digital art image of Pascal, which I admitted could be considered art.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
And yes I believe that if someone just loves their #2 pencil and sees beauty and feels emotion by gazing at it then yes it is art. |
Ok so using that logic do you feel emotion by gazing at your wife assuming you're married. Would that then make her art? You seem to say art can be anything just so long as the person experiences some kind of emotion for it?
ETA: Let me just add that I would agree she could be considered art but not because she is loved but because she is unique and if there's a god he/she had a vision of her and created her. The unique vision is what I believe you're missing in my point, which in my opinion is required for something to be considered art.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
A far as the artist missing in astrophotography this is where we differ because as you stated about Ansel the same can be said for the astrophotographer. They are making choices about how they intend to shoot and process the object just like Ansel and his beloved landscapes. |
Again you're not understanding my point. There are also many ways to capture a flower. I could use my camera, a paintbrush, a pencil, etc but unless I can capture it in a unique way that conforms to the way I see the subject not with my physical eyes but my mental one it won't lead me to a place of art. Again just my opinion.
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 18:58:25.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 06:35:59 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
The reason why an Ansel Adam's landscape is art is because he didn't simply capture what was in front of him but rather the INNER BEAUTY he saw in them. It is in his vision of the landscape he saw with his mind's eye that led to the way he photographed them. Without the presence of an artist, art cannot be created. I content that with astrophotography the artist is missing. There is nothing of the artist to be found within the confines of the photo itself. When we examine an Ansel photograph we can see his imprint, HIS VISION, HIS WAY OF SEEING. That's what makes art. |
And therein lies the conundrum, for us at DPC:
Shoot the "straight" landscape (or at least make it LOOK like you did) and if it's breathtaking enough (that is to say, if you lucked into the perfect combination of clouds and light and scene) you will be rewarded. But if you dare to MANIPULATE the landscape, to make it conform to your inner vision, you will certainly get a slew of comments that it is "overprocessed", even if in the end you score pretty well...
Excuse the rant, but I printed for the man, and I know what the negatives look like...
R. |
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 06:53:15 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, THIS is Ansel's... See photographer's comments for original...
I swear, that's the color equivalent of what we did with some of his most famous B/W images...
R. |
Ahhh...a stunning image...no doubt Ansel himself would be envious! ;-) |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 07:02:25 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
See that is just the thing Richard, you can and do capture DSO differently every time. The total number of exposures the filters used to capture the different light spectrum's is very much akin in my opinion to your example of "capture in a unique way" the other images.
You seem to believe that the DSO are static and are not capable of being captured in different ways which could not be further from the truth. |
With all due respect you're not understanding my point. You're referring to technical decisions. I'm referring to aesthetic ones. I posted earlier of a digital art image of Pascal, which I admit could be considered art.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
And yes I believe that if someone just loves their #2 pencil and sees beauty and feels emotion by gazing at it then yes it is art. |
OK so using that logic do you feel emotion by gazing at your wife assuming you're married. Would that then make her art? You seem to say art can be anything just so long as the person experiences some kind of emotion for it?
ETA: Let me just add that I would agree she could be considered art but not because she is loved but because she is unique and if there's a god he/she had a vision of her and created her. The unique vision is what I believe you're missing in my point, which in my opinion is required for something to be considered art.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
A far as the artist missing in astrophotography this is where we differ because as you stated about Ansel the same can be said for the astrophotographer. They are making choices about how they intend to shoot and process the object just like Ansel and his beloved landscapes. |
Again you're not understanding my point. There are also many ways to capture a flower. I could use my camera, a paintbrush, a pencil, etc but unless I can capture it in a unique way that conforms to the way I see the subject not with my physical eyes but my mental one it won't lead me to a place of art. Again just my opinion. |
Well I think we are starting to get a tad esoteric and I do understand what it is you are saying I just don't happen to agree. :-)
When I look at a landscape and imagine what it could look like and I make that happen with my camera and PS it is the same as me looking through my telescope and seeing a monochromatic DSO and imagining what it could look like with different colors and I make that happen with my camera and PS.
I get you don't think DSO's are art well I do and that as they say is that. I can't convince you nor do I want to and you can't convince me so we must agree to disagree. :-D
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 19:03:11. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 07:08:01 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I get you don't think DSO's are art well I do and that as they say is that. I can't convince you nor do I want to and you can't convince me so we must agree to disagree. :-D |
Maybe we can at least agree that the Diamondbacks are not going anywhere this year despite their "apparent" talent? :P
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 07:09:33 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I get you don't think DSO's are art well I do and that as they say is that. I can't convince you nor do I want to and you can't convince me so we must agree to disagree. :-D |
Maybe we can at least agree that the Diamondbacks are not going anywhere this year despite their "apparent" talent? :P |
HEY NOW!!!!!!! D-Back's are going all the way baby! Strongest team in Baseball!!!! On that we can agree! :-P |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 07:26:59 PM · #100 |
Van Gogh painted a plain old pair of work boots that went unrecoqnized during his lifetime, but today would be considered a priceless work of art. If the teacher and the student create the teaching, when does the artist and the subject matter create the artistry or above all else when does our external validation for a highly internal process...actually matter?
::Back to the sports page::
Edited; oops...I never learned to spell
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 19:29:00. |
|
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: 07/31/2025 02:25:30 AM EDT.
