DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> An art rant...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 111, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/06/2007 12:29:47 PM · #1
Why is it so often that "art" is used as an excuse for bad technicals?

It come up in another thread. And I didn't want to go on about it there, but...

I see a LOT of photographers claiming that their OOF, badly lit images are an expression of art. BS, I say. Fine, break a rule, but do so with class, not crap.

To the noobs, learn technicals. No one is going to take you seriously if you produce junk, no matter how profound your "statement" might be.

Look at it this way -- Iffin' I was to be ritin' like dis' wud u gib ma credit fur da stuff I sed? I think not. Grammatical rules are the rules of language, much as technicals are the rules of photographic art. Make a statement, but make it in a way that people want to read it.
06/06/2007 12:36:21 PM · #2
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Why is it so often that "art" is used as an excuse for bad technicals?



Since neither can be defined, its a rather moot point.
06/06/2007 12:36:49 PM · #3
agree

edit: with fotomann_forever

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 12:37:52.
06/06/2007 12:40:00 PM · #4
I agree partially also.

But I also agree that 'bad technicals' can produce profound effects in certain situations.
06/06/2007 12:40:48 PM · #5
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

... in certain situations.


That's the key!!!!
06/06/2007 12:44:15 PM · #6
I guess Leroy's point is... Fine, break the rule of thirds, but make damn sure it's in focus.... or... Wow, the focus is soft, but the composition and lighting are striking and the blurriness adds to the image.

It's the poorly composed, poorly lit, abstract, blurry, non-nude images that people are claiming as art that is nothing more than pure crap! If it has ZERO redeeming qualities then it doesn't matter how INTENTIONAL all of the points are... it's still crap!

ETA: Disclaimer: the non-nude comment was strictly for Leroy's benefit.

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 12:45:30.
06/06/2007 12:47:13 PM · #7
Originally posted by DowseDesigns:

I guess Leroy's point is... Fine, break the rule of thirds, but make damn sure it's in focus.... or... Wow, the focus is soft, but the composition and lighting are striking and the blurriness adds to the image.


It takes a much more trained eye and mind to realize these concepts though.
06/06/2007 12:50:38 PM · #8
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

It takes a much more trained eye and mind to realize these concepts though.


I agree... those who do NOT understand these concepts should NOT attempt "artistic interpretations".
06/06/2007 01:00:11 PM · #9
you should have told that to andy
06/06/2007 01:00:35 PM · #10
"Look at it this way -- Iffin' I was to be ritin' like dis' wud u gib ma credit fur da stuff I sed? I think not. Grammatical rules are the rules of language, much as technicals are the rules of photographic art. Make a statement, but make it in a way that people want to read it."

Remember that a)rules are meant to be broken, and b)art has no rules. That's why it's art. As per your example, have you ever read poetry? Or A Clockwork Orange?

My viewpoint is that you need to know the technical aspects in order to manipulate them artistically, or choose to abandon them altogether. One thing about any discussion of art though, is that beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. Just because you might not like something, others surely will and that is OK. Perhaps others don't have the eye for reading a photograph technically, but that doesn't mean that their opinion is less valid, just different.

I used to work in a lab and was astounded by what constituted great pictures or art. For the most part all people cared about was the person(s) face was in the middle. And who am I to argue? What appears as crap to me can be gold to someone else.


06/06/2007 01:16:42 PM · #11
Know the rules first

then

Break them with purpose and understanding why you are breaking them
06/06/2007 02:47:45 PM · #12
In the end who cares what it's called or categorized? If it sells, it sells. The world art buying community will dictate what to call it.

If the photographer wants to call it art, so be it.
06/06/2007 03:02:47 PM · #13
tuja Lindströms work, //www.foto.gu.se/personal/tuija/tuija1.html

She is an professor ogf photography and a teacher att one of the most prestigous are universities in Sweden.

//www.hasselbladfoundation.org/fsa_utb_2006_sv.html

The 2006 hasselblad foundation victor-prize winner.

I personally think both of them suck. What do you think?
06/06/2007 03:04:50 PM · #14
Shouldn't this be in the rant section?
06/06/2007 03:06:28 PM · #15
Originally posted by xion:

Shouldn't this be in the rant section?


So far it's been civil.
06/06/2007 03:07:37 PM · #16
Speaking of Art, Where have all the torches a pitchforks gone? sigh...
06/06/2007 03:08:44 PM · #17
Originally posted by shanelighter:

Remember that a)rules are meant to be broken, and b)art has no rules. That's why it's art. As per your example, have you ever read poetry? Or A Clockwork Orange?


Can you intentionally break a rule if you don't know what the hell it is? You answered your own question in agreement with Leroy apparently.

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 15:09:22.
06/06/2007 03:09:17 PM · #18
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Know the rules first

then

Break them with purpose and understanding why you are breaking them

You said this best.
06/06/2007 03:35:59 PM · #19
Originally posted by shanelighter:

...Remember that a)rules are meant to be broken, and b)art has no rules. That's why it's art. As per your example, have you ever read poetry?...One thing about any discussion of art though, is that beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder....


Why would you say that "art has no rules"? Does not every work of art impose its own laws? If not, what would hold it together, make it cohere?

Poetry, and especially "Free Verse", ain't free at all but lays down its own laws which is precisely what makes it so and not otherwise.

Beauty, too, the way I see it, can be better defined by "aptness to purpose" than dismissing it as a matter of personal taste, particularly when the various "persons" declaring their taste cannot be said to have either the appetite or inclination to sample a choice of specimen to develop a "taste'.

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 15:38:04.
06/06/2007 03:37:31 PM · #20
Originally posted by xantangummi:

tuja Lindströms work, //www.foto.gu.se/personal/tuija/tuija1.html

She is an professor ogf photography and a teacher att one of the most prestigous are universities in Sweden.

//www.hasselbladfoundation.org/fsa_utb_2006_sv.html

The 2006 hasselblad foundation victor-prize winner.

I personally think both of them suck. What do you think?


This is amazing to me...if I had taken those same photos I would be hammered all over the board for them. I guess when you make a name for yourself you can take "artistic"(Crap) photos and people will love them because YOU took them. I've always found that interesting. There has to be more photos that I am not seeing, I'm sure they have both produced wonderful images.

Edit - Were those shot with a pinhole?

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 15:41:47.
06/06/2007 03:55:36 PM · #21
Originally posted by DefyTime:

This is amazing to me...if I had taken those same photos I would be hammered all over the board for them.


Sometimes I wonder how photographer Terry Richardson would do on this site.

06/06/2007 04:12:46 PM · #22
Only two people count in "artwork"

The person making it, and the person paying for it.

The rest is completely subjective.
06/06/2007 04:14:42 PM · #23
Every work is governed differently. I have no sympathy for your suffering.
06/06/2007 04:19:09 PM · #24
Why is it you care? hehe.

Art is subjective. Someone is always going to like something, and someone is always going to hate it.

What does it matter if a photographer uses art as an 'excuse'? If their images are something they enjoy, no matter how technically unsound, then that is their business.

All anyone can do is recognize these people early, and stop trying to help them "improve" when it's obvious they don't wish to.

*shrug*.. definitely not something worth worrying about IMO...

Also, for the record, some of the most technically sound images around are pure garbage as well.. and some of the most well loved images on this site are images I myself find boring and inane, but it doesn't matter in the slightest in the long run.

Just focus on bettering yourself and helping those that want it.
06/06/2007 04:22:29 PM · #25
I've been searching the internet for this quote but can't find it so to paraphrase...

Great art comes about when you know the rules and then learn how to break them.

How can one know if someone screwed up or made some deliberate artistic choices? This may be the one of my core issues with this site. Most people have no idea. I can't tell quite often but I'm trying hard to learn how to look deeper at an image and not merely for it's technical merits.

Over the last few weekends I went to a bunch of photo galleries and continually ask myself how these truly amazing images would do here at DPC and sadly I realize that they would get killed. Most of the Photographers didn't follow "the rules of photography" of course...

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 16:32:14.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/18/2021 04:29:58 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/18/2021 04:29:58 PM EST.