| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/17/2009 02:10:26 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Wait! just an issue. reread Yanko -
he stated nothing about not valuing technical matters. he stated something about not valuing technical matters OVER substance and meaning. In other words, placing emphasis or importance on substance rather than or over any emphasis on technical matters. hope I made sense... |
That's the point I was trying to make as well; in the case of Steve, Yanko was implying that Steve values, in a given image, substance over craft. In the context of this discussion, "craft" can be taken to mean "sharpness, composition, tonal range...etc", and the implication, again, is that craftsmen and laymen tend to value execution over vision, basically. And this is about craftsmen in the "arts", not about craftsmen in, say, the automotive or construction trades.
When a craftsman rises "above" his craft, that's one way "art" happens.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-06-17 14:10:52. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 02:14:14 PM · #227 |
| Mastering a craft is great, because once you've mastered it, you can forget it. It's not in your brain anymore, it's in your hands. That frees your brain to make creative leaps as your hands create the art. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 02:15:14 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Yes, but he might have gone home and looked at his images, come across this one and said, "What a truly wonderful, serendipitous capture this was!" and not considered any of it a 'mistake' or 'imperfect.' |
That's probably what happened. I've never thought of Steve valuing technical matters, especially the insignificant, over substance and meaning. That's what craftsmen and laymen do. |
That's a pretty weak statement Yank. The artists and the masters value BOTH. It's not like an artist now has license to take lazy photography and forget the rules of composition and lighting. The artist or master knows when to break them or knows when the substance shines through the imperfection, but the rules are still considered. I think you were making that point, but the idea that the artist or master somehow does not "value technical matters" is hyperbole. |
Wait! just an issue. reread Yanko -
he stated nothing about not valuing technical matters. he stated something about not valuing technical matters OVER substance and meaning. In other words, placing emphasis or importance on substance rather than or over any emphasis on technical matters. hope I made sense... |
Yes! The reread does go exactly like you said. Maybe Richard just needs writing lessons... :) |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 02:36:30 PM · #229 |
I (almost) give up. Robert the Musical Bear put it quite well, and I thought the matter elucidated for all. No one is devaluing craft; in fact, that is where the term art comes from, but I think craft is being misconstrued as the application of a kind of absolute mechanical formula. DrAchoo writes "It's not like an artist now has license to take lazy photography and forget the rules of composition and lighting." I think he has it backwards: the "rules" of composition and whatever are guidelines merely and are derived from the experience of what works, of what is pleasing, of what sings. We can, and most art appreciation courses do, analyze such a satisfactory work to death, and derive some interesting principles/rules of thumb, but these still do not constitute the entirety of the work, nor indeed do they explain why it is aesthetically pleasing, e.g., to have the significant feature in the lower left third, or why it is singularly dynamic to have it elsewhere.
And pace/peace, Jeb: no one is completely educated, ever, and most of us are imperfectly educated; what you learn on your own because you need to or want to is always worth more.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2009 02:46:26 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by tnun:
DrAchoo writes "It's not like an artist now has license to take lazy photography and forget the rules of composition and lighting." I think he has it backwards: the "rules" of composition and whatever are guidelines merely and are derived from the experience of what works, of what is pleasing, of what sings. |
You did catch in the next breath I said "The artist knows when to break them or know when the substance shines through the imperfection?
I look at it this way. The master knows when the break the rules and knows the rules aren't the purpose of the artwork. However, that doesn't mean when teaching the apprentice that they can skip past learning the rules. Many fine writers use split infinitives effectively. This, however, doesn't mean the high school teacher shouldn't mark them with a red pen on the student's essay. (That's just a weird example.)
Once you are a master you are allowed to boldly break the rules when the picture demands it. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 03:08:12 PM · #231 |
| To boldly go...But you are still putting form before substance. Form is derivative from substance. Form is derivative from the substance that is basically intuited. There is no one way to teach art. Nor writing for that matter. I think this is important because you make it sound as if no one is "allowed" to break the rules except the master - altogether too righteous. If I take a blurry picture with the lighting all wrong, the composition skewed and it pleases me and maybe some others, it is still not "allowed" because I am not a master? What if I go on to build on this intuitive sense of a picture working - is that not some form of learning? |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 03:20:02 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Intelli:
When I orignally critiqued the photo, I had virgin eyes..and I assumed it was a modern photo, and I judged it for what it was. It doesn't impress me much.
But for some reason, I want to look at it..and it sticks with me. |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Hence the term art. |
Art is sticky? |
There are several answers to that:
1. Yes, good art sticks with you and you just can't quite forget it.
2. Can be, especially when he  Art Roflmao has been playing wih Godzilla
3. Yes, if it is in LA, and fluffers are involved.
Ed: to correct spelling
Message edited by author 2009-06-17 15:21:46.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2009 03:35:23 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Wait! just an issue. reread Yanko -
he stated nothing about not valuing technical matters. he stated something about not valuing technical matters OVER substance and meaning. In other words, placing emphasis or importance on substance rather than or over any emphasis on technical matters. hope I made sense... |
That's the point I was trying to make as well; in the case of Steve, Yanko was implying that Steve values, in a given image, substance over craft. In the context of this discussion, "craft" can be taken to mean "sharpness, composition, tonal range...etc", and the implication, again, is that craftsmen and laymen tend to value execution over vision, basically. And this is about craftsmen in the "arts", not about craftsmen in, say, the automotive or construction trades.
When a craftsman rises "above" his craft, that's one way "art" happens.
R. |
Thank you both for clarifying. I probably shouldn't have lumped craftsmen with laymen as that is probably where Jeb thought I was insulting craftsmen. I was not.
@Doc You're right. My writing skills could be better. Clearly I don't use enough French.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2009 03:50:42 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by tnun:
To boldly go...But you are still putting form before substance. Form is derivative from substance. Form is derivative from the substance that is basically intuited. There is no one way to teach art. Nor writing for that matter. I think this is important because you make it sound as if no one is "allowed" to break the rules except the master - altogether too righteous. If I take a blurry picture with the lighting all wrong, the composition skewed and it pleases me and maybe some others, it is still not "allowed" because I am not a master? What if I go on to build on this intuitive sense of a picture working - is that not some form of learning? |
Heh. You caught the infinitive! :) Art can be all loosy-goosy if you want and there is an outlet for that. At the end of the day having some structure in your learning is likely to be more fruitful and allow you to better express (there we go with the sp inf again) what you ultimately want to express. Do you think every art student should choose to reinvent the wheel? Why not learn from those before us?
Substance and form are dependent on each other. One is not derivative from the other. Substance can show through without form but it can be better shown through form. Form can exist without substance, but it better when substance exists.
Message edited by author 2009-06-17 15:51:20. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 03:54:20 PM · #235 |
Now back to the topic at hand...
Why are the stairs blurry? Couldn't he have used a tripod or an anti-shake lens or something? ;P |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 03:59:03 PM · #236 |
| In a way form and substance are arbitrary distinctions. All I meant was that the formal analyzable structures of a piece are somehow secondary to the full gestalt of the piece. (Heaven forbid we descend/ascend into the realm of Aristotelian distinctions). But I think you contradict yourself: "Substance and form are dependent on each other. One is not derivative from the other. Substance can show through without form but it can be better shown through form. Form can exist without substance, but it better when substance exists." Although it is possible you simply way more an effete metaphysician than I. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:00:46 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Now back to the topic at hand...
Why are the stairs blurry? Couldn't he have used a tripod or an anti-shake lens or something? ;P |
I am so glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this or I'd have to clean my monitor.... :-) |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:05:26 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by tnun:
In a way form and substance are arbitrary distinctions. All I meant was that the formal analyzable structures of a piece are somehow secondary to the full gestalt of the piece. (Heaven forbid we descend/ascend into the realm of Aristotelian distinctions). But I think you contradict yourself: "Substance and form are dependent on each other. One is not derivative from the other. Substance can show through without form but it can be better shown through form. Form can exist without substance, but it better when substance exists." Although it is possible you simply way more an effete metaphysician than I. |
Ok, I can agree with you. I agree that in true art the form is secondary to the piece as a whole.
effete? Holy cow.
and it's "...than me". :P
Does anybody know of a link that actually discusses that piece or anything HCB has said about it? I can't find one and I think it would be interesting.
Message edited by author 2009-06-17 16:06:19. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:11:46 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by tnun:
Although it is possible you simply way more an effete metaphysician than I. |
and it's "...than me". :P |
No it's not. To "prove" it, extend the construction: should it be "you are more..than me am" or "you are more than I am"? "I" is correct.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-06-17 16:13:17. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:13:37 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Although it is possible you simply way more an effete metaphysician than I. |
and it's "...than me". :P |
No it's not. To "prove" it, extend the construction: should it be "you are more..than me am" or "you are more than I am"? "I" is correct.
R. [/quote]
Goddammit Rob, He's a Doctor not an English Major. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:14:06 PM · #241 |
grammar is in the ear of the beholder. it can be intentionally "blurry". C'est la vie.
discuss... |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:14:21 PM · #242 |
You've missed the point completely, there's no way he could have taken a sharp shot, he was actually hiding up there with his mistress (why else be in such a secluded place?), the shutter was pressed completely by accident ;)
Originally posted by dahkota:
Now back to the topic at hand...
Why are the stairs blurry? Couldn't he have used a tripod or an anti-shake lens or something? ;P |
|
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:15:43 PM · #243 |
| Oops. The whole thing is miswrote: should be: "you simply may be way more of an effete metaphysician than I {am). And who would know better than I? |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:16:04 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
You've missed the point completely, there's no way he could have taken a sharp shot, he was actually hiding up there with his mistress (why else be in such a secluded place?), the shutter was pressed completely by accident ;)
Originally posted by dahkota:
Now back to the topic at hand...
Why are the stairs blurry? Couldn't he have used a tripod or an anti-shake lens or something? ;P |
|
I thought he was up there with his wife, accusing her of having an affair and the guy speeding away on the bike was her lover. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:16:10 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by tnun:
Although it is possible you simply way more an effete metaphysician than I. |
and it's "...than me". :P |
No it's not. To "prove" it, extend the construction: should it be "you are more..than me am" or "you are more than I am"? "I" is correct.
R. |
Oh man, hoist by my own petar!
Yes, you are correct! For some reason I was thinking I was the object and not the subject, but I stand corrected.
But where did the "effete" come from? I don't quite get it in the sentence.
Message edited by author 2009-06-17 16:17:05. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:21:17 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh man, hoist by my own petar! |
pssst: it's petard. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:21:47 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But where did the "effete" come from? I don't quite get it in the sentence. |
It came just before "metaphysician".
:P |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:22:18 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh man, hoist by my own petar! |
pssst: it's petard. |
You don't know that for sure. Jason may have a petar for all we know. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:24:02 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh man, hoist by my own petar! |
pssst: it's petard. |
You don't know that for sure. Jason may have a petar for all we know. |
I think I remember him mentioning he had it surgically removed. |
|
|
|
06/17/2009 04:24:19 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh man, hoist by my own petar! |
pssst: it's petard. |
You don't know that for sure. Jason may have a petar for all we know. |
I don't think so, but I'd vote on a retar. |
|
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 05:15:48 PM EDT.
