| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/07/2006 01:43:57 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
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! |
But it might bring beauty to somebody.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:46:37 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Originally posted by agenkin:
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! |
But it might bring beauty to somebody. |
Or it might aid in the scientific understanding of the insect. Who ever said that DPC was for "artistic expression" alone? |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 01:53:08 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Originally posted by agenkin:
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! |
But it might bring beauty to somebody. |
Yep, it might. :) We can always use more beauty, imo.
I'm on a mission to take a perfect shot of a butterfly or hummingbird just to prove that I can. It's not all that easy. Have you tried it, agenkin? |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 02:00:32 PM · #54 |
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. |
I diagree that most people look at the whole picture, but many just have poor technique. The shot above while I get the idea the technique is what scores low in my book. if it had more detail it would have emphasized the DOF better. Making it a better photo. Also if a challenge is set to be a certain topic or technique then the photo should have those charaterists. If not then why have a subject at all |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 02:04:08 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
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? |
no just the opposite
but you can take a " technically perfect " picture of poo/effluent/crap/etc & call it a rose
doen't change it nature ... |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 02:23:27 PM · #56 |
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 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. |
Not sure if I agree with the fusion jazz/Mozart metaphore but agree 110% with what you are saying.
Whatever our chosen art expression may be, we should do it to the best of our abilities. And if we don't have the skills then we learn them as you have. That takes time and great effort.
Message edited by author 2006-07-07 14:31:28.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 02:27:24 PM · #57 |
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. |
I think I'm gonna ease your burden Doc, and take some of that umbrage off of your back.
You got a problem with fusion jazz? You trying to say that guys like Miles Davis or Joe Zawinul aren't artists of the highest caliber? Them's figthing words.
Which goes to prove that one man's art is another man's fart.
To the OP - if you feel that you are an accomplished photographer who has already developed a personal style and has come to dpc to show your works of art to the rest of the world, you will likely meet with disappointment. But you are still welcome here, and may have a lot to contribute to the site that will be helpful to others as they strive to become better photographers. Hope this is not too blunt - think of dpc as a classroom, and as an arena to hone one's skills in competition, but don't mistake it for an art gallery. The voters here are the unwashed masses, not a group of trained art critics. If your vision includes your works having universal appeal, I expect you could benefit from the site.
Message edited by author 2006-07-07 14:28:00.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 02:46:38 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by otisXmike:
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. |
anyone know if a site like this already exists? if not, hey, mike, let's go create it and make lots of money? ;)
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 02:55:36 PM · #59 |
Well, looks like we got some jazz fans here...
My analogy was meant for this:
Fusion Jazz, to me (and this may just be pure ignorance) is about breaking rules to break rules. The artist is allowed to explore all dimensions of music in a freeform manner. It is the ultimate avenue for creativity because there are few, if any, restrictions. However, only a small portion of people really dig fusion.
Mozart, or classical music, is very much about form and structure. Mozart wrote music within a well established set of "rules" (A-B-A, etc.). Creativity is allowed, but within a firm framework and going outside the framework is not seen as creativity, but as a defect. However, Mozart has survived as a beloved composer for literally HUNDREDS of years. Joe Zawinul will likely be quite forgotten in 2425, if he hasn't been already.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 03:01:22 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
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! |
When are you going to post some shots taken with that Hasselblad? ;)
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 03:13:26 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Mozart, or classical music, is very much about form and structure. Mozart wrote music within a well established set of "rules" (A-B-A, etc.). Creativity is allowed, but within a firm framework and going outside the framework is not seen as creativity, but as a defect. However, Mozart has survived as a beloved composer for literally HUNDREDS of years. Joe Zawinul will likely be quite forgotten in 2425, if he hasn't been already. |
Mozart did a great contribution to music, no doubt about it. When he was composing it, he was in the avant-garde of his time. Note that great contemporary composers, while studying the corpus of Mozart's work, don't compose music that sounds like Mozart. They are trying to expore themselves, instead.
Classical music has moved on, and you don't need to turn to Jazz to look for innovation and free exploration. Look at Alfred Schnittke, for example. I have no doubt that both Alfred Schnittke and Miles Davis will be remembered and revered in 2425. And why? Because they were, actually, creating something new. |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 03:18:11 PM · #62 |
| There's a difference between creating something new and creating something new that is accepted by the intended audience. The latter being a success. |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 03:32:02 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, looks like we got some jazz fans here...
My analogy was meant for this:
Fusion Jazz, to me (and this may just be pure ignorance) is about breaking rules to break rules. The artist is allowed to explore all dimensions of music in a freeform manner. It is the ultimate avenue for creativity because there are few, if any, restrictions. However, only a small portion of people really dig fusion.
Mozart, or classical music, is very much about form and structure. Mozart wrote music within a well established set of "rules" (A-B-A, etc.). Creativity is allowed, but within a firm framework and going outside the framework is not seen as creativity, but as a defect. However, Mozart has survived as a beloved composer for literally HUNDREDS of years. Joe Zawinul will likely be quite forgotten in 2425, if he hasn't been already. |
Fusion is a combination of jazz and rock, usually taking instruments (trumpet, sax, xylophone) and elements (solos) from jazz to put with instruments (guitar) and elements (rhythm) from rock. Breaking rules would be more accurately associated with the Free Jazz genre, which is by definition is less structured and unpredictable. Artists such as Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, and the seminal John Coltrane come to mind.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 03:34:17 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, looks like we got some jazz fans here...
My analogy was meant for this:
Fusion Jazz, to me (and this may just be pure ignorance) is about breaking rules to break rules. The artist is allowed to explore all dimensions of music in a freeform manner. It is the ultimate avenue for creativity because there are few, if any, restrictions. However, only a small portion of people really dig fusion.
Mozart, or classical music, is very much about form and structure. Mozart wrote music within a well established set of "rules" (A-B-A, etc.). Creativity is allowed, but within a firm framework and going outside the framework is not seen as creativity, but as a defect. However, Mozart has survived as a beloved composer for literally HUNDREDS of years. Joe Zawinul will likely be quite forgotten in 2425, if he hasn't been already. |
Fusion is a combination of jazz and rock, usually taking instruments (trumpet, sax, xylophone) and elements (solos) from jazz to put with instruments (guitar) and elements (rhythm) from rock. Breaking rules would be more accurately associated with the Free Jazz genre, which is by definition is less structured and unpredictable. Artists such as Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, and the seminal John Coltrane come to mind. |
Thanks coolhar, yes, my analogy would be better had I used Free Jazz. The farthest I really go down the jazz road is Sting. That isn't very far.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 03:37:15 PM · #65 |
The whole music/photography analogue is an interesting one, in that with music someone has to compose it and someone has to play it, and it isn't always (or even often) the same person. So which is the analogue of the photographer?
R.
Message edited by author 2006-07-07 15:37:55.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 03:56:13 PM · #66 |
| And most musicians learn how to play their instruments very well 'by the rules' before they start breaking the rules and making it work! |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 03:59:03 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The whole music/photography analogue is an interesting one, in that with music someone has to compose it and someone has to play it, and it isn't always (or even often) the same person. So which is the analogue of the photographer?
R. |
I'd say that the photographer is the composer. But some of my favorite pieces come when an artist interprets a composer's work in a different manor than the composer played that same work himself. The McLaughlin-Santana version of Coltrane's A Love Supreme is certainly more accessible than the original but still as powerful in it's own way.
Legend has it that Adderley ripped up Zawinul's charts for Mercy, Mercy, Mercy and had them rewritten by another member of the band; then, after a few days of rehearsals, Zawinul abandoned his own arrangements and redid the piece much more to Cannonball's tastes. So who took that picture?
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 04:00:24 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, looks like we got some jazz fans here...
My analogy was meant for this:
Fusion Jazz, to me (and this may just be pure ignorance) is about breaking rules to break rules. The artist is allowed to explore all dimensions of music in a freeform manner. It is the ultimate avenue for creativity because there are few, if any, restrictions. However, only a small portion of people really dig fusion.
Mozart, or classical music, is very much about form and structure. Mozart wrote music within a well established set of "rules" (A-B-A, etc.). Creativity is allowed, but within a firm framework and going outside the framework is not seen as creativity, but as a defect. However, Mozart has survived as a beloved composer for literally HUNDREDS of years. Joe Zawinul will likely be quite forgotten in 2425, if he hasn't been already. |
Have to say I admire creative thinking people like you that consider such things and recognize their subtle importance. Just not sure it is germane to a photography discussion. LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 04:01:01 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by annasense:
Originally posted by otisXmike:
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. |
anyone know if a site like this already exists? if not, hey, mike, let's go create it and make lots of money? ;) |
If you do, let me know? ;-D |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 04:04:27 PM · #70 |
where's graphicfunk and zeuszen when you need them?
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 04:14:55 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by annasense:
Originally posted by otisXmike:
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. |
anyone know if a site like this already exists? if not, hey, mike, let's go create it and make lots of money? ;) |
If you do, let me know? ;-D |
Here it is: All about the "art" |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 04:15:03 PM · #72 |
Someone commented to me on the "straight from the camera" entry that I should have "bumped up the contrast" ! !!!!!!
KS
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.
over exposed, underexposed, DOF, lower/higher sat, and so on.
Next to filling out I DID THIS ON PURPOSE on the title, what can I do?
Yes, I know, in the little text box about the image... but you don't see that during the challenge so it doesn't matter if it is written there.
Basicly, Im thinking... If people Understood that I did it for a reason. That I know I did it and controled the effect I wanted, that maybe my scores wouldn't suck at the bottom of the pit like they do. And I wouldn't get the comments telling me
Its a little Over/Under Exposted/saturated, the DOF is off and so on and so forth.
My techniques are what are hurting my images. But, that is how I wanted the image to look and how i controled it to look that way with a certain effect.
Does anyone else have this problem? Or am I the lone wolf here? |
|
|
|
|
07/07/2006 04:17:49 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Someone commented to me on the "straight from the camera" entry that I should have "bumped up the contrast" ! !!!!!!
KS
|
... and? |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 04:21:01 PM · #74 |
Someone commented to me on the "straight from the camera" entry that I should have "bumped up the contrast" ! !!!!!!
KS
lol, that is very funny. what you do as a photographer and as an artist rests only with you. no silly comment should make a lot of difference to you, other than to amuse or bemuse. have fun and take photographs, always learn learn learn, from taking photographs etc, looking at photographs and from making and receiving comments. make it all about learning and always reflect on it all.
Message edited by author 2006-07-08 13:28:01. |
|
|
|
07/07/2006 04:23:10 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Someone commented to me on the "straight from the camera" entry that I should have "bumped up the contrast" ! !!!!!!
KS |
Yes, you can do that in camera you know.... and sharpness, +/- EV values, manual control, all that jazz. That's something that DPC IS good for sometimes.
|
|
