| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/07/2006 11:19:49 AM · #26 |
Wow, this is pretty funny... I've been struggling with this since I've been here, only 2 weeks or so actually registered and entering challenges. I've got some great advice and outlook from a member here and I'm just going to stick around and continue doing what I do. If I find a similar site where a majority of the people are there for "art" and not just for "pretty perfect pictures" I'll go there, but for now DPC is organized and well run (from what I can tell) and there are some people here worth sticking around for. Look at my bio and I've just added my list of goals last night. They have nothing to do with winning a ribbon or getting great scores. I guess I can't expect to change peoples minds... but if I can offer some enjoyment to a couple people here and there and hear that they appreciate and "get it" it will make my time around here worth while.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 11:20:16 AM · #27 |
| It seems that people forget that the issue on voting comes in two forms . Form a. Technique Form b. artistry. Kind of like Ice skating judging. If you miss one of the two your score may be effect or may not. Just depends on to what extent. Also just because you thought it worked IE over or under saturated or certain "done on purpose" idea, It may not work for others IE art is what one perceives as art. Some people like Picasso some like warhol some think its garbage. I would say if the overall score is low maybe your not achieving what others want to sell the image to that person, but if you like it continue. Its kind of like the kid who puts a black dot in the center of a white piece of paper and turns it in for an art project. He may like it but may still get a failing grade. Everytime I enter a competition I try to figure out what will sell my photo as being the best or at least good. Do I? By all means no. But thats just my perspective |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 11:24:37 AM · #28 |
 My favorite shallow DOF image that tanked. Bottom line: this is DPC, voters are predictable, if you shoot against what they normally score well, you tank. :/
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 11:32:29 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
I was invited to a show opening of a local Photographer this morning -
one of the Artists collection of pieces is called "Moving By" - a series of images that looks like landscapes taken from cars -
all of them would get brown ribbons here (& in my eyes, blurry smudges of color)
but still can be shown (& Appreciated) in a gallery ...
in the eye of the beholder ... |
Once I can afford a Gallery showing, that is first on my list of priorities. Just, not there fincialy yet. I have big dreams for my photography.
If you visit my site... it even taglines 'Not Your Everyday Photography' Because I know its not. Take pride in it.
Just bums me to not get 'votes' that are at lest average.
Guess.. maybe, its all a stroke to my ego, good or bad, and well, the bad doesn't do well. Just want something positive to come out of my work, and have it mean Im doing something right.
Just because I amuse myself doesn't mean much. People need outsie acceptance. Part of Maslos Hiearchy. Its part of everyone. and I guess I don't feel acepted here, because my scores are so low.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 11:40:33 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
I think one of the bigest problems I have with these challenges. IS that people do not understand that certain things are done on purpose. |
Something to keep in mind is that just because you do something on purpose does not necessarily mean it is done right and works. This is where learning comes into play. If you do something on purpose and viewers are unable to recognize it then it means you probably failed in the execution of the image.
When that happens look at the image and ask yourself why viewers did not "get it". Assuming that you care what viewers think, then do not repeat the same mistake twice.
It is usually because you did not apply the effect enough that causes viewer confusion.
Message edited by author 2006-07-07 11:40:55.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 11:45:38 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Just because I amuse myself doesn't mean much. People need outsie acceptance. Part of Maslos Hiearchy. Its part of everyone. and I guess I don't feel acepted here, because my scores are so low. |
well, Maslow's grandchild is a member of this site, so don't lose hope!
Originally posted by coronamv:
It seems that people forget that the issue on voting comes in two forms . Form a. Technique Form b. artistry. |
Technique is not on the same level as artistry. Technique is a tool used to achieve artistry. You can't judge technique without considering artistry. That is why figure skating is not an art, it's a sport. In art, you don't do a triple lutz unless there is a reason to do a triple lutz.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 11:48:26 AM · #32 |
Just a couple of things. If you shoot for yourself then you're going to find plenty of individuals who don't like your work. If you shoot for "the high score" then you're going to be praised by the masses. Of course, there are many people here who shoot for themselves and it happens to coincide with what many people like as well.
What you have to do is figure out which one will make you the happiest. If you like your style then why does it matter what others think? However, I have yet to find many ribbon winners who I felt didn't deserve their accolades. If we want people to be open minded about our work we need to start with ourselves and be open minded about theirs.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 11:50:38 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by idnic:
My favorite shallow DOF image that tanked. Bottom line: this is DPC, voters are predictable, if you shoot against what they normally score well, you tank. :/ |
See to me it would have scored low. Reason ther is no detail to my eyes in the range where the shot is suposed to be in focus. And seems too bright. Good Imagery but technically not your strongest work probably would score a 4 maybe 5 But thats my take. I like many of your other photos just think this one is not very good. |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 12:29:16 PM · #34 |
The problem is that most people (for one reason or another) are incapable of comprehending an image as a visual object in its own rights. They are looking for easily recongnisable and well defined *subjects* in all photographs. Such people like ideas to be brought to them in the utmost clarity, and generally dislike deviations from this norm. This is quite expected, and most top results of the challenges on this site show you that to be true. At the very best, the top challenge finishers have an unusual idea in their shot, but the idea is always presented super-clearly, ready to consume.
Truly artful, unusual images usually stay underrated, but they often find their viewers, too. Not many, but still, there are people capable of appreciating them.
I think that the ideas of winning a challenge and that of artful experimentation are mutually exclusive (with very rare exceptions). If you pick the latter, just try to ignore the mob that wants technically perfect mediorcity.
Message edited by author 2006-07-07 12:30:48. |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 12:40:40 PM · #35 |
The bottom line is there is no such thing as a broadly enjoyed, misunderstood artist. So don't try. If you like doing things that others don't like, forget about them. Enjoy the art for yourself and the few who share the common vision. But don't expect a wide audience and don't get upset with people when they don't "get it". They aren't nethanderal; they just don't go for your niche of style.
I will also take a small amount of umbrage with the general idea here (not necessarily by the original poster) that technical perfection equates to a small mind or "mediocrity". I strive for technical perfection because I have the skill and ability to do so and because I see it as a natural application of my own "art". It seems like suddenly everybody here claims to be into fusion jazz and scoffs at the violin virtuoso doing Mozart. |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 12:51:05 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The bottom line is there is no such thing as a broadly enjoyed, misunderstood artist. So don't try. If you like doing things that others don't like, forget about them. Enjoy the art for yourself and the few who share the common vision. But don't expect a wide audience and don't get upset with people when they don't "get it". They aren't nethanderal; they just don't go for your niche of style.
I will also take a small amount of umbrage with the general idea here (not necessarily by the original poster) that technical perfection equates to a small mind or "mediocrity". I strive for technical perfection because I have the skill and ability to do so and because I see it as a natural application of my own "art". It seems like suddenly everybody here claims to be into fusion jazz and scoffs at the violin virtuoso doing Mozart. |
Thank you! I get tired of "artists" complaining that those who don't care for their style to be uneducated, boorish, etc. A beautiful, technically perfect photo is as much art as a digital drawing, sculpture, or painting. Even a studio shot can be art.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:03:20 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will also take a small amount of umbrage with the general idea here (not necessarily by the original poster) that technical perfection equates to a small mind or "mediocrity". |
I also take umbrage at that idea. "Perfection" requires a standard. You can have a technically perfect artistic shot, or a technically perfect beer ad, or a technically perfect anything else. Technical perfection should always be strived for.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:04:36 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Thank you! I get tired of "artists" complaining that those who don't care for their style to be uneducated, boorish, etc. A beautiful, technically perfect photo is as much art as a digital drawing, sculpture, or painting. Even a studio shot can be art. |
Technical perfection is not a genre, any more than art is. Drawings, sculptures and paintings can also be technically perfect.
Message edited by author 2006-07-07 13:04:59.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:08:11 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Technical perfection is not a genre, any more than art is. Drawings, sculptures and paintings can also be technically perfect. |
& have no redeeming qualities .. |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:10:44 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Technical perfection is not a genre, any more than art is. Drawings, sculptures and paintings can also be technically perfect. |
& have no redeeming qualities .. |
hahahaha "technical perfection" means something entirely different to DrAchoo, chaimelle, posthumous and ralphnev and yet here we are having a "conversation" about it... ain't life grand?
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:11:43 PM · #41 |
I think of it in terms of "accessibility"; there's "easy art" and "difficult art". If you hung an original Norman Rockwell alongside an original Robert Motherwell in a popular public space and asked passersby to "vote" on which was "better", the Rockwell would win hands down; it's more accessible to the average citizen.
Hang the same two images in the entry hall of an art school, and the Motherwell would garner far more votes; these people are predisposed to seek out challenging, "difficult" art and praise it.
There's no point in discussing who's "right"; we all have our opinions, we all have our comfort levels, and we're all entitled to be who we are and prefer whatever floats our boats.
Personally, I see DPC as a great place to work on the craft of photography, but a poor place to explore photography-as-art. And I don't see anythign wrong with that, even if it occasionally frustrates me. For me, the bottom line is that if you want to develop to your fullest as an "artist", you simply must become a master of the craft of your selected medium.
If DPC doesn't allow you to explore your "vision", as it were, I wouldn't despair over that; I'd focus on my craft, knowing that in the end the better you get at that the better will be your art.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:19:58 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If DPC doesn't allow you to explore your "vision", as it were, I wouldn't despair over that; I'd focus on my craft, knowing that in the end the better you get at that the better will be your art. |
Craft is used to create effects. Some effects are liked by DPC, others are not. You can use quite a bit of craft to create a low contrast "flat" image, but that won't help your score. That's why I think comments are so important. Whether someone likes my image or not isn't nearly as helpful as what they noticed about my image. If I get a low score and lots of comments about how terribly flat my image is and how there's no "focal point," I'll know I've done my job well.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:21:27 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will also take a small amount of umbrage with the general idea here (not necessarily by the original poster) that technical perfection equates to a small mind or "mediocrity". |
If this is directed at me, then you vastly misunderstood my post. I never said that technical perfection equates mediorcity. Technical perfection can mean completely different things for different shots, anyways.
My point was that the majority of viewers want little more than technically perfect realistic representations of recognisable subjects. That is because they judge the *subject* in a photograph, but not the photograph as a sum total of the composition, the elements of design and the emotional load. |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:33:36 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will also take a small amount of umbrage with the general idea here (not necessarily by the original poster) that technical perfection equates to a small mind or "mediocrity". |
If this is directed at me, then you vastly misunderstood my post. I never said that technical perfection equates mediorcity. Technical perfection can mean completely different things for different shots, anyways.
My point was that the majority of viewers want little more than technically perfect realistic representations of recognisable subjects. That is because they judge the *subject* in a photograph, but not the photograph as a sum total of the composition, the elements of design and the emotional load. |
Naw, I was just speaking in general. You used the word that got me thinking, but it wasn't you in specific... ;) |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:34:21 PM · #45 |
To elaborate a little more.
Pablo Picasso once said (I am going to translate from memory, so I am sorry that this is likely not precise): "I could draw a perfect puppy. But what will change in the world after I've drawn it? There will be one more puppy in the world, and nothing else."
The same in photography. I could shoot a perfect representation of a butterfly, in absolute sharpness (which would take skill, patience, and a bit of luck). But what have I done by this picture? Am I being creative? No!
Message edited by author 2006-07-07 13:36:54. |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:34:59 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's no point in discussing who's "right"; we all have our opinions, we all have our comfort levels, and we're all entitled to be who we are and prefer whatever floats our boats.
Personally, I see DPC as a great place to work on the craft of photography, but a poor place to explore photography-as-art. And I don't see anythign wrong with that, even if it occasionally frustrates me. For me, the bottom line is that if you want to develop to your fullest as an "artist", you simply must become a master of the craft of your selected medium.
Robt. |
These threads discussing what everyones opinions about art are nearly pointless, I guess it happens on sites like this for all mediums and somebody always ends up hurting someone else feelings (I hear it happen at work everyday). You think I'd learn to stay out of it :)... not that smart I guess.
Either way, I'm pretty new to photography and I just want to learn from people here firsthand. There are many exceptionally talented people here that shoot many different styles and subjects... and everyone has the ability to learn from everyone else. I work at an art school (computer animation and graphic design) and I'll pick up some of the most simple tips from hearing the students talk because they're new and doing everything from a simplicity standpoint... while I've been making that same thing more and more difficult over the years. |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:36:30 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
My point was that the majority of viewers want little more than technically perfect realistic representations of recognisable subjects. That is because they judge the *subject* in a photograph, but not the photograph as a sum total of the composition, the elements of design and the emotional load. |
Sorry, but that's a difficult statement to agree with on a site where the voters ('viewers') are also photographers. All the elements of the image and title factor into my votes. On the other hand, the people who one knows personally also factor into their opinions their regard for the person and that person's feelings. My experience has been that DPC voters are far more objective than your mother/friend/co-worker, etc. The fact that comments often revolve around technical issues does not mean that other considerations aren't in play--technical issues simply are the ones that can be addressed more easily. If a voter/commenter likes your vision they're likely to point that out as well.
"Artistic vision" is much more difficult to address in the format of anonymity during challenges and with the lack of an artist's statement or context in a body of work. I agree with DrAchoo and BearMusic--this is a great place to hone your craft and strive for technical excellence but it is not without artistry, either. It takes a blend of both to achieve communication between image and viewer. |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:39:18 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by otisXmike:
I work at an art school (computer animation and graphic design) and I'll pick up some of the most simple tips from hearing the students talk because they're new and doing everything from a simplicity standpoint... while I've been making that same thing more and more difficult over the years. |
That's exactly right! I've been doing this for more years than I want to count, and sometimes I see something mentioned in passing here that completely changes my approach to how I accomplish a given goal. whether by simplifying the process or by providing a more controllable way to manipulate it. A prime example of this would be how "contrast masking" has almost completely replaced complex levels and curves in my work; I have more control with less effort. I learned about contrast masking in here from a tutorial maybe 18 months ago.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:42:32 PM · #49 |
A technically perfect shot with average composition would only get a 5 or 6 from me. (I seperate the two, using settings such as DOF, aperture, and lighting as technicals and composition as artistic.) Great composition and poor technicals would also probably get a 5 to 6. A 10 is when it all comes together and makes me say "WOW"--which may or may not be what anybody else likes!
ralphnev: Are you saying no piece of art that is technically perfect is any good?
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:43:04 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
I could shoot a perfect representation of a butterfly, in absolute sharpness (which would take skill, patience, and a bit of luck). But what have I done by this picture? Am I being creative? No! |
Haha, now I get to ask if that was aimed at me... ;) just kidding. |
|
