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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> An art rant...
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 111, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/07/2007 11:22:19 AM · #76
And you'd equate this to a person who never had the chance to learn your flawless English articulation?
 06/07/2007 11:31:13 AM · #77
Originally posted by shalrath:
And you'd equate this to a person who never had the chance to learn your flawless English articulation?


Yes ... if that person is striving to make a statement, I am critical of articulation. We all are. The same statement will reach a wider audience, if well articulated in which ever language it is presented in (not just English).

The same is true of photographers, painters and sculptors. Those that don't have proper technique will have their statements lost in the mess.

Message edited by author 2007-06-07 11:31:55.
 06/07/2007 11:35:34 AM · #78
I have to agree with Leroy on this one. Shooting without learning the technicals means you are "discovering" each time you shoot something, look at the image and proclaim it art. When you've learned the technicals and rules you can then "create" what you see in your mind's eye by choosing to use or not to use the tools at hand (rules, etc.). In my humble opinion, art can not be found, it must be created with intention.
06/07/2007 11:41:45 AM · #79
I didn't read the whole thread, but wanna add one thing (no clue if it's allready been said):

Break the rules, but only if you know them.

06/07/2007 12:03:13 PM · #80
Originally posted by idnic:
art can not be found, it must be created with intention.


I think I just found my next signature :-)
 06/07/2007 12:06:56 PM · #81
Originally posted by biteme:
I didn't read the whole thread, but wanna add one thing (no clue if it's allready been said):

Break the rules, but only if you know them.


Yup, many posts ago but is worth repeating.

=============
Know the rules first

then

Break them with purpose and understanding why you are breaking them

=============
 06/07/2007 12:09:50 PM · #82
nevermind, mis-read.

Message edited by author 2007-06-07 12:10:11.
 06/07/2007 12:11:22 PM · #83
I'd like to go ahead and say a prayer if I may.

Thank you Jesus for all the experts we have in this thread alone. Amen.
 06/07/2007 12:18:15 PM · #84
Originally posted by TCGuru:

I think this is the kind of art you approve of Leroy?? Can we have an example of the crap or would that be too mean??


I've been debating on posting some stuff, but I'm not too terribly keen on calling someone out like that. Even if they aren't part of this site.
06/07/2007 12:24:31 PM · #85
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by TCGuru:

I think this is the kind of art you approve of Leroy?? Can we have an example of the crap or would that be too mean??


I've been debating on posting some stuff, but I'm not too terribly keen on calling someone out like that. Even if they aren't part of this site.


You're more than welcome to post up anything in my portfolio. Won't bother me in the least.
 06/07/2007 12:25:53 PM · #86
Originally posted by idnic:
art can not be found, it must be created with intention.

This is bs. There's even a whole found art movement, most notable the Dadaist, especially Marcel Duchamps (if you don't know who he is, I'm not sure you can fully participate in any discussion of art).

What about a landscape? In many ways you had to find the picture first.

Anyways, check out ZoneZero
First rate artistic photography that I think applies to this thread.
 06/07/2007 12:30:20 PM · #87
Originally posted by dudephil:

You're more than welcome to post up anything in my portfolio. Won't bother me in the least.


Hell, I could post plenty of stuff from my own. I'm far from perfect and lazy quite often. :-) But, then again, I never claimed "art" as an excuse.

I do know my weaknesses.

Message edited by author 2007-06-07 12:31:58.
 06/07/2007 12:31:20 PM · #88
Also, I'll offer up one of my own photographs for discussion:


There is obviously a lot technically wrong with this photograph. However, as a work of art it's not bad. Now I've been through photo school, I know the technicalities, where and how I bent or broke the so-called rules. My question is this:

Does this image become more acceptable if you know I know the "rules" than just seeing it straight up, without any background info?

If so, I think you need to rethink what you're judging. Judging a photograph on technical merits is a completely different ballgame than judging art.

And since when did art have rules anyways?
 06/07/2007 12:38:55 PM · #89
Originally posted by shanelighter:
Originally posted by idnic:

art can not be found, it must be created with intention.


This is bs. ..... What about a landscape? In many ways you had to find the picture first.


When the viewer looks at your photo, they don't care that you "found" the landscape. Beauty exists everywhere - it's your job to convey it, and that takes work.

The audience can only see what is presented to them... What you created to convey the landscape... The tools you used to convince them that this was a beautiful scene.

Without using the proper tools - exposure, composition, focus, tone - one could easily miss the beauty that you intended to capture. In doing so, they would not argue against the scene's beauty - they argue that you failed to convey it.

Edit: No one is arguing that this site is appreciative of art in general - it's true, the site audience tends toward commercial/technical art. While your presentation is generally expected to be technically competent, the value of this site is that it forces you to be creative about your subject matter. And there are a lot of great creative folks here to learn from.

Message edited by author 2007-06-07 12:47:58.
 06/07/2007 12:42:58 PM · #90
Originally posted by shanelighter:
Judging a photograph on technical merits is a completely different ballgame than judging art.


All art (visual and other) is judged on its technical merits, even by the most uneducated viewers.

Originally posted by shanelighter:
And since when did art have rules anyways?


Last week, we sent out a memo. You didn't get it?

Message edited by author 2007-06-07 12:49:51.
 06/07/2007 12:44:32 PM · #91
Originally posted by shanelighter:

There is obviously a lot technically wrong with this photograph. However, as a work of art it's not bad.


Yes, and I beg to differ.
 06/07/2007 12:45:19 PM · #92
Originally posted by shanelighter:
especially Marcel Duchamps (if you don't know who he is, I'm not sure you can fully participate in any discussion of art).


I take exception to this statement. Just because one may not know an artist does not mean they cannot participate in a discussion of art. That comment to me is egotistical and passive aggressive. If anything it is you who may not be capable of "Fully Participating".

Art is open and subjective and interpreted by the viewer.

"I am not sure what art is but I know it when I see it"

Message edited by author 2007-06-07 12:46:21.
 06/07/2007 12:47:17 PM · #93
I was an art major in college and believe me art had "rules" WAY back at its very beginning. It didn't take long for people to realize what works and what doesn't work well -- the ancient greeks invented the rule of thirds and the golden mean -- why? Because it works. We study the old masters because they applied certain rules that were effective then and are still applicable now. By not learning from our predecessors, we are doomed to recreate the wheel. One should be aware of all forms of art, not just the ones that justify their own preferences or abilities.
06/07/2007 01:42:03 PM · #94
Originally posted by shanelighter:
There's even a whole found art movement, most notable the Dadaist, especially Marcel Duchamps (if you don't know who he is, I'm not sure you can fully participate in any discussion of art).


BTW, it's Duchamp, not Duchamps. We can discuss Dadaism and Surrealism if ya want. There are still rules which these artist knew, used and broke.

Message edited by author 2007-06-07 13:57:30.
 06/07/2007 01:46:12 PM · #95
Read my signature. 'Nuf said.
 06/07/2007 01:54:26 PM · #96
I am blessed to have gotten to know some of the greatest photographic talents of our generations. I'm a lucky guy. Ya know what? You couldn't get them to engage in a conversation like this to save their lives. Why? Art is subjective. To condemn one persons art is to condemn your own.

Let the critics categorize, the mostly no talent sacks of crap that they are especially one critic from the new york times that if i ever see again will beat about the head and neck with a meat hammer after he mercilessly ripped apart some of my images in my first show in nyc and basically made my name dirt in nyc for a couple years and i basically had to scratch my way back into... ummm... hmmmm... I digress...

So just go out and shoot some pictures will ya?
 06/07/2007 01:55:08 PM · #97
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
BTW, it's Dulchamp, not Duchamps.


Make that Duchamp Leroy...

R.
 06/07/2007 01:56:48 PM · #98
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
BTW, it's Dulchamp, not Duchamps.


Make that Duchamp Leroy...

R.


D'oh!
 06/07/2007 01:59:07 PM · #99
Originally posted by Davenit:
I am blessed to have gotten to know some of the greatest photographic talents of our generations. I'm a lucky guy. Ya know what? You couldn't get them to engage in a conversation like this to save their lives. Why? Art is subjective. To condemn one persons art is to condemn your own.


Bingo. Count me in on that one. I got to hang out with Ansel, with the Weston brothers, Morley Baer, many others, and we NEVER had a conversation like this. Technical stuff we talked about a lot; tools of the trade, tricks of processing, whatever. What an image meant to us we talked about, sure. But never was the question raised, "is it art?"

R.
 06/07/2007 02:06:01 PM · #100
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
we NEVER had a conversation like this. Technical stuff we talked about a lot; tools of the trade, tricks of processing, whatever. What an image meant to us we talked about, sure. But never was the question raised, "is it art?"

R.


Mostly you proved my point. The technicals were more of a concern than the "art".

Would you not assume that they knew they needed the technicals to make thier art?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 10:05:38 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 10:05:38 PM EDT.