| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2007 04:22:56 PM · #26 |
I'm sick and tired of seeing this rant about Art when he's not here to defend himself. You folks should all be ahsamed. I'm reporting everyone here to Site Council and having you all banished.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 04:42:36 PM · #27 |
To the OP:
Is this image a technical mess?
Or did the photographer make some choices that transcend way beyond the rules? |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 04:43:43 PM · #28 |
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. 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? |
Lyndstroms work is brilliant in every way, shape and form. Why? because she take's the viewer to where she is and puts them right there.
The images seen on the net don't do the prints justice at all. She is an artist in my book. An amazing one at that.
Let's put it this way. She's always shot the same way. She made a name for herself by shooting that crap. :-)
So it brings us back to the old question. Does DPC, Photo.net, Photosig and other sites on the net support and encourage Photography as art? IMO not really. It makes people better photographers. It allows them to grow and take good pictures and that's a good thing but that's were it ends.
Just judge by the statements that have been made. If Tuija were here and posted her images in challenges they would probably get 3's and be laughed off the page. I think that explains it best. If these sites can't recognize and support someone who is considered a true artist how on earth can they ever teach people how to become one?
So Defy yeah, you would have been hammered all over the board here but you would be praised by 13 museums and all the people that came to see your 35 solo gallery shows. Who's the better judge of 'art'?
Dave |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 04:51:40 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Why is it you care? hehe.
Art is subjective. Someone is always going to like something, and someone is always going to hate it....
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.
...Just focus on bettering yourself and helping those that want it. |
Why "focus on bettering yourself and helping those who want it", if you already have a care you're devoted to?
Why not, instead, focus on that and waste time thinking about yourself and satisfying the desires of others, whatever the cause or motivation?
And "art is subjective"? Yes, people love and hate. I say it's people who are subjective. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 04:55:24 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Why is it you care? hehe.
Art is subjective. Someone is always going to like something, and someone is always going to hate it....
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.
...Just focus on bettering yourself and helping those that want it. |
Why "focus on bettering yourself and helping those who want it", if you already have a care you're devoted to?
Why not, instead, focus on that and waste time thinking about yourself and satisfying the desires of others, whatever the cause or motivation?
And "art is subjective"? Yes, people love and hate. I say it's people who are subjective. |
Semantics. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 04:59:08 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Semantics. |
Cynicism. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 05:06:12 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Semantics. |
Cynicism. |
I'm sorry to hear that. I hear there's medication these days :) |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 05:20:20 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
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... |
Agreed completely. Getting "better" here to me translated in to transgressing further and further into the norm (not always but a lot of the time) and becoming more commercial. This ISN'T an art site in general.
Art is so subjective. That's why very simple images do well here... no distractions whatsoever and not too much to process in the half a second it takes to look at it. Not much to nitpick, eh I'll give it a 6.
Very rarely do I see images that make me think do well on here. That is a big part of ART for me. Doesn't matter if you like it or not, it makes you react and think. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 05:21:18 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Davenit:
Just judge by the statements that have been made. If Tuija were here and posted her images in challenges they would probably get 3's and be laughed off the page. I think that explains it best. If these sites can't recognize and support someone who is considered a true artist how on earth can they ever teach people how to become one?
Dave |
Thanks man, i needed these words of encouragement after lots of 4s on DPC.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 05:38:38 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I'm sick and tired of seeing this rant about Art when he's not here to defend himself. You folks should all be ahsamed. I'm reporting everyone here to Site Council and having you all banished.
|
Yeah, and how long will he be in jail anyway? Did he get the maximum sentence for village-burning? |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 05:41:59 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Pug-H:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I'm sick and tired of seeing this rant about Art when he's not here to defend himself. You folks should all be ahsamed. I'm reporting everyone here to Site Council and having you all banished.
|
Yeah, and how long will he be in jail anyway? Did he get the maximum sentence for village-burning? |
no jail can hold him
 |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 05:49:27 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
To the OP:
Is this image a technical mess?
Or did the photographer make some choices that transcend way beyond the rules? |
technical mess, surely there was enough light there for him to boost up the shutter speed, but i do think the image could be saved with a bit of work in neat image.
Message edited by author 2007-06-06 17:49:53. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 05:51:41 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
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. |
If your artistic expression is "Intentionally" Tacky, Bad and that was your "Intent" that is an expression of the artist. If it is a mistake..Well that is another issue.
//anashcreation.com/thenashgallery/BenjaminKanarek/chr_tien?full=1
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 06:11:19 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Why is it so often that "art" is used as an excuse for bad technicals? |
Oh you mean like the PRO portraiture winner in the PX3 (something in Paris) contest?!?!? Maybe cuz it is Giorgio Armani.
CRAP!! Not to mention OOF. :)
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 06:26:37 PM · #40 |
Why, on this site, are their so many clones. For example, lets look at the religion challenge, 400 people submited hands with nails, 350 people submited churches, 400 people submitted statues. You can take your rules and your proper way of doing things march about felling great about yourself. But at least they followed the rules of photography. Artschool trains people to be mediocre and nothing more. This site trains people to conform. People without tallent can learn the rules and fake their way through a career as a "Graffic Designer" which makes me laugh ...
I'm sick of guys standing in tubes, Lanscapes with guy in distance, and chicks with overbright doll eyes and the sharp clean DPClone way to process images to get a blue green purple ribbon. Lets not forget the "Proper" rules for desaturation, you must ALWAYS desaturate the main subject only, any deviation from what we all do will get you a 3.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 06:29:51 PM · #41 |
| Quick someone point out that I used the term desaturate wrong, hurry before there is still time .... |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 06:30:45 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by ThingOne:
Why, on this site, are their so many clones. For example, lets look at the religion challenge, 400 people submited hands with nails, 350 people submited churches, 400 people submitted statues. You can take your rules and your proper way of doing things march about felling great about yourself. But at least they followed the rules of photography. Artschool trains people to be mediocre and nothing more. This site trains people to conform. People without tallent can learn the rules and fake their way through a career as a "Graffic Designer" which makes me laugh ...
I'm sick of guys standing in tubes, Lanscapes with guy in distance, and chicks with overbright doll eyes and the sharp clean DPClone way to process images to get a blue green purple ribbon. Lets not forget the "Proper" rules for desaturation, you must ALWAYS desaturate the main subject only, any deviation from what we all do will get you a 3. |
Shhhh |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 06:33:23 PM · #43 |
Sorry, guess this noob should pack away his camera and go learn some real technical skills. Yup, that explains my low average and stuff. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways...
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 06:42:15 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Sometimes I wonder how photographer Terry Richardson would do on this site. |
I don't think half of Terry's photographs would be allowed up on this site. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 09:20:57 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
To the OP:
Is this image a technical mess?
Or did the photographer make some choices that transcend way beyond the rules? |
The photographer clearly used blurring and motion to create an abstract. It has purpose, not an excuse.
The whole point I was making is that "art" is too often used as an excuse for lack of skill, talent, or motivation.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 09:26:36 PM · #46 |
Okay, Leroy, just to keep this going a little longer, how about these?
 
On another site, someone told me I needed a fast shutter speed on the second one.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 09:27:16 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Sorry, guess this noob should pack away his camera and go learn some real technical skills. Yup, that explains my low average and stuff. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways... |
Wasn't a personal attack toward anyone.
Just don't say "this is art" and sit back, lazily excusing bad technicals as expression. Ofcourse it's not MY decision, but I like to see people improve.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 09:27:47 PM · #48 |
| i agree with some, but disagree about limiting photography to standard set of rules. if i understand it, then rules in photography are supposed to help GUIDE people to taking good photos. they should not have been rules that had to be followed strictly. breaking the rules is fine, but please only do it for the benefit of the photo, not as an excuse to fail. |
|
|
|
06/06/2007 09:28:39 PM · #49 |
Didn't take it as a personal attack. Just an observation of my own skills. I lack knowledge and technicals... and my creativity, doesn't seem to make up for the lack of the other.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2007 09:30:05 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Okay, Leroy, just to keep this going a little longer, how about these? |
I'm by no means an art critic. But, the blur in both of these appears to be intentional. Although I think the second should have been a longer, not shorter exposure. If there were camera shake blur everywhere or bad composition and lighting, I would seriously question intent.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2024 10:14:20 PM EDT.
