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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Hidden Gem.....Seriously?
Pages:  
Showing posts 176 - 200 of 234, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/19/2009 11:44:14 AM · #176
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by pawdrix:


BTW, commercial photography can be art but that might be stretching the word "art" very thin. Avedon's probably a good example of a great commercial artists but there aren't too many like him.

You can add Helmut Newton to that short list :-)

David LaChapelle also.
03/19/2009 11:45:54 AM · #177
Originally posted by citymars:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by pawdrix:


BTW, commercial photography can be art but that might be stretching the word "art" very thin. Avedon's probably a good example of a great commercial artists but there aren't too many like him.

You can add Helmut Newton to that short list :-)

David LaChapelle also.


Don't forget Irving Penn.
03/19/2009 12:20:27 PM · #178
Originally posted by pawdrix:

First, I look at an image and simply see if it moves or communicates something to me. So in that sense I don't compartmentalize unless I'm looking at the image to see what they did to achieve it.

Then if I'm judging an image on it's photographic merits, as a student, I suppose a new set of criteria comes into play. There, as I stated, I begin in the center with the camera choices, subject, light, crop then I extend outward to pre-production and post production. They all come into play but a great photograph begins with those initial things.

Some images are ALL about the camera as a tool and don't rely much on pre or post production although they must come into play to some extent however minor. Some images are very basic photographically speaking but amazing in terms or pre production and while I could praise the photographer and photograph I would still view it's wonder in terms of pre-production.

BTW, commercial photography can be art but that might be stretching the word "art" very thin. Avedon's probably a good example of a great commercial artists but there aren't too many like him.


The second paragraph is where we deviate. I judge things based on their whole, the whole being the final image and any background story the photographer wishes to share that might illuminate my understanding of the piece. It's the same way I look at other art. If I'm looking at a sculpture I don't judge it based on it's sculptural merits rather the end result. I either like it or I don't. Now if I learn a specialized or painstaking technique was used I might be more impressed by the skill of the sculptor but that doesn't change my opinion of the end result and whether or not it spoke to me. The story/meaning might but not the technique. This is pretty much how I vote first and foremost. Now I may comment on technique if I see something in error or done well but I don't factor that into my score unless it has an impact on my appreciation of the piece. I am however more critical of commercial work in regards to technicals since those are devoid of story/meaning so there is nothing else to judge other than challenge relevency.

Speaking of which, commercial photography as art, I'll grant you that, but I'll say this: if it's art it was art first, commercial second. Art can be used for commercial purposes but it doesn't work the other way around, IMO.

Message edited by author 2009-03-19 12:32:12.
03/19/2009 12:38:32 PM · #179
Originally posted by yanko:

Art can be used for commercial purposes but it doesn't work the other way around, IMO.


Not a big Warhol fan, eh?

;)
03/19/2009 12:44:51 PM · #180
Originally posted by chromeydome:

Originally posted by Prash:

Well I appreciate all the advice. But how did we get from having different opinions to you suggesting what kind of challenges I should participate in?

Originally posted by chromeydome:



[quote=Prash] But I have now stopped participating in challenges that push me to do more and more post processing just to be competitive.


You should enter challenges with the types of images and PP you prefer, sir. That, to me, is the value of this site.


Again, we miscommunicate: I was not suggesting which challenges you should participate in, I was responding to your "I have now stopped participating in challenges...." comment: In my opinion, you should not feel pushed by the challenges to change your style or taste, and was suggesting that you should enter any and all challenges you are interested in with images that are your style and taste, even if the challenge might seem biased in the other direction. The value of this site is seeing a diversity of work.

But this has been exhausting. I won't trouble you further.

Peace.


I wont either. It can be hard reading expression just through the dead text in the forums.
In all fairness, thanks for elaborating further.

Peace to you too!
03/19/2009 12:47:25 PM · #181
Originally posted by yanko:

I am however more critical of commercial work in regards to technicals since those are devoid of story/meaning so there is nothing else to judge other than challenge relevency.


I'd observe that there's nothing in the concept "commercial photography" that precludes the element of story/meaning. Granted, it's not seen much, but nevertheless some of the best commercial photography *is* what I'd call "layered" with meaning.

Originally posted by yanko:

Speaking of which, commercial photography as art, I'll grant you that, but I'll say this: if it's art it was art first, commercial second. Art can be used for commercial purposes but it doesn't work the other way around, IMO.


I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean the "art" trumps the commercial every time, if they coexist, well yeah, maybe. But, for example, I was once shooting on assignment for Cesar Pelli in Los Angeles, and one of the images from that series of architectural photographs was hung in a show of my work in the La Jolla Museum of Contemporary Art, so it *started* as commercial work but it happened to cross over, as it were.

R.
03/19/2009 01:16:06 PM · #182
I think of the series of Absolut Vodka ads. They are commercial in intent and were created for that expressed purpose, but clearly they are art.
03/19/2009 01:18:26 PM · #183
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by yanko:

Art can be used for commercial purposes but it doesn't work the other way around, IMO.


Not a big Warhol fan, eh?

;)


Not really but that's besides the point. Hey, I'm trying to keep things somewhat simple and direct so as maybe a tenth of it might actually be understood. It's difficult to stay on point much less get anywhere within the discussion.

Message edited by author 2009-03-19 13:38:32.
03/19/2009 01:19:05 PM · #184
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think of the series of Absolut Vodka ads. They are commercial in intent and were created for that expressed purpose, but clearly they are art.


Why? Just curious.
03/19/2009 01:27:47 PM · #185
I was actually very impressed with the entries of the hidden gem challenge. Voters vote on the final image, not the photographers story in taking the image (we're not voting on the comments section, people). Some of the best shots out there took very little work, had very little luck, and didn't involve a grandiose story or a dangerous trek.

Sometimes if you're on location when the lighting is right, that's all it takes to make an incredible photo. I realize I'm no expert in photography, but I am a big appreciator of it and I do participate in it. My appreciation extends to this site as well as all of the photographers who participated in this challenge.

What we need is less negativity, and more action. If you love "pure photography", then blow us away with pure photography. Snag a ribbon and be proud. Don't complain about it here. Enjoy the art, and let others enjoy it the way they do.

03/19/2009 01:33:03 PM · #186
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by yanko:

I am however more critical of commercial work in regards to technicals since those are devoid of story/meaning so there is nothing else to judge other than challenge relevency.


I'd observe that there's nothing in the concept "commercial photography" that precludes the element of story/meaning. Granted, it's not seen much, but nevertheless some of the best commercial photography *is* what I'd call "layered" with meaning.

Originally posted by yanko:

Speaking of which, commercial photography as art, I'll grant you that, but I'll say this: if it's art it was art first, commercial second. Art can be used for commercial purposes but it doesn't work the other way around, IMO.


I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean the "art" trumps the commercial every time, if they coexist, well yeah, maybe. But, for example, I was once shooting on assignment for Cesar Pelli in Los Angeles, and one of the images from that series of architectural photographs was hung in a show of my work in the La Jolla Museum of Contemporary Art, so it *started* as commercial work but it happened to cross over, as it were.

R.


What I mean by "art first, commercial second" is in regards to intentions. Intentions are important when creating art, IMHO and before Mae (hihosilver) jumps in, yes there can be lucky accidents but I contend that the intentions to create art were there even if only in the subconscious.

To look at it another way, if the purpose is to create an image to be used in an ad to sell a product and all of your decisions are being made to please your client, which usually means making the product/service desirable enough to sell than that's not art. For it to be art the purpose must be different. In the case of Warhol, since Don brought him up, does anybody think he was trying to sell more cans of Campbell Soup with the art he created depicting that product?

03/19/2009 01:49:19 PM · #187
Originally posted by yanko:

What I mean by "art first, commercial second" is in regards to intentions. Intentions are important when creating art, IMHO and before Mae (hihosilver) jumps in, yes there can be lucky accidents but I contend that the intentions to create art were there even if only in the subconscious.

To look at it another way, if the purpose is to create an image to be used in an ad to sell a product and all of your decisions are being made to please your client, which usually means making the product/service desirable enough to sell than that's not art. For it to be art the purpose must be different. In the case of Warhol, since Don brought him up, does anybody think he was trying to sell more cans of Campbell Soup with the art he created depicting that product?


I think I'm going to leave this one alone.
03/19/2009 01:55:53 PM · #188
Originally posted by yanko:

The second paragraph is where we deviate. I judge things based on their whole, the whole being the final image and any background story the photographer wishes to share that might illuminate my understanding of the piece. It's the same way I look at other art. ...


I should make it clear that I am generalizing and I don't bring any one way of seeing or judging to the game.

Newton and Ritts are good examples as a meeting point between much of what we see. Each guy has a good deal of pre-production as part of their style and concept but in terms of camera use there are also known for making strong choices that go into their overall product. Compared to hightly post-processed images both don't rely on that aspect to heavily make an their impact although some delicate PP is there.

I would be silly to comparmentalize when analyzing their work as that type of work is a package deal.

I don't look at much of my work as "art" with the exception of a few shots, this being one of them...



and with that you have to bring a different set of eyes and criteria as opposed to viewing commercial or concept work (deSousa).

Again, I have to stress that I'm generalizing as there's so much out there with varied purpose. There are so many exceptions that can blow these ideas out of the water but taken in whatever context they are meant, they all have value. eta:Except the rubbish yanko's trying to push about commercial art... ;)

Message edited by author 2009-03-19 14:47:18.
03/19/2009 01:59:15 PM · #189
Originally posted by yanko:



To look at it another way, if the purpose is to create an image to be used in an ad to sell a product and all of your decisions are being made to please your client, which usually means making the product/service desirable enough to sell than that's not art. For it to be art the purpose must be different. In the case of Warhol, since Don brought him up, does anybody think he was trying to sell more cans of Campbell Soup with the art he created depicting that product?


Did I miss the meeting where it was determined that you were given the authority to claim what is and isn't art? hehe.

(and yes, I do realize that you probably intended it to mean 'not art to you personally', but without that qualifier, it can become a rather arrogant statement.)

Message edited by author 2009-03-19 14:00:20.
03/19/2009 02:04:33 PM · #190
i really love pizza with pepperoni and black olives
03/19/2009 02:25:38 PM · #191
Originally posted by smardaz:

i really love pizza with pepperoni and black olives


Ooh--and the cheese is "well done" too. That's the way to make a pizza.

Order the pepperoni UNDER the cheese sometime... :-)
03/19/2009 02:36:00 PM · #192
Originally posted by chromeydome:

Originally posted by smardaz:

i really love pizza with pepperoni and black olives


Ooh--and the cheese is "well done" too. That's the way to make a pizza.

Order the pepperoni UNDER the cheese sometime... :-)


The lighting's too direct...Not Art.

Message edited by author 2009-03-19 14:36:34.
03/19/2009 02:39:42 PM · #193
Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by yanko:

What I mean by "art first, commercial second" is in regards to intentions. Intentions are important when creating art, IMHO and before Mae (hihosilver) jumps in, yes there can be lucky accidents but I contend that the intentions to create art were there even if only in the subconscious.

To look at it another way, if the purpose is to create an image to be used in an ad to sell a product and all of your decisions are being made to please your client, which usually means making the product/service desirable enough to sell than that's not art. For it to be art the purpose must be different. In the case of Warhol, since Don brought him up, does anybody think he was trying to sell more cans of Campbell Soup with the art he created depicting that product?


I think I'm going to leave this one alone.


Okay
03/19/2009 02:42:02 PM · #194
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............pizza
{drooling.....}
03/19/2009 02:45:50 PM · #195
Ah yes. Yet another example of how pointless it is to have a serious discussion about anything around here. I'm done.

Message edited by author 2009-03-19 14:46:04.
03/19/2009 02:52:13 PM · #196
Originally posted by yanko:

Ah yes. Yet another example of how pointless it is to have a serious discussion about anything around here. I'm done.


Not entirely sure what you expected from a discussion that is almost as polarizing as religion and politics, especially when you tend to use "this isn't up for discussion" type statements.
03/19/2009 02:53:57 PM · #197
Originally posted by yanko:

Ah yes. Yet another example of how pointless it is to have a serious discussion about anything around here. I'm done.


if it was my bit of randomness that soured you Richard, I apologize, just being myself..
03/19/2009 02:57:09 PM · #198
Originally posted by yanko:


What I mean by "art first, commercial second" is in regards to intentions. Intentions are important when creating art, IMHO and before Mae (hihosilver) jumps in, yes there can be lucky accidents but I contend that the intentions to create art were there even if only in the subconscious.

To look at it another way, if the purpose is to create an image to be used in an ad to sell a product and all of your decisions are being made to please your client, which usually means making the product/service desirable enough to sell than that's not art. For it to be art the purpose must be different. In the case of Warhol, since Don brought him up, does anybody think he was trying to sell more cans of Campbell Soup with the art he created depicting that product?


I see what you are saying...and I agree to a point. This is only really true if you ignore a huge part of what "art" is. I hate to do it but I must state the cliche: "Art is in the eye of the beholder." As much as that is a cliche it does have a point that you have completely ignored. If I look at an ad in a magazine that brings about great emotion, etc. does it really matter what the photographer's intent was? I believe art is not about intent, but about emotion.
03/19/2009 03:01:24 PM · #199
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by yanko:

Ah yes. Yet another example of how pointless it is to have a serious discussion about anything around here. I'm done.


Not entirely sure what you expected from a discussion that is almost as polarizing as religion and politics, especially when you tend to use "this isn't up for discussion" type statements.


I'm pretty sure I included several time that it is my opinion. How many times do I have to say that? After every sentence? Every word? Shouldn't it be implied from the get go regardless?
03/19/2009 03:08:22 PM · #200
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by yanko:

Ah yes. Yet another example of how pointless it is to have a serious discussion about anything around here. I'm done.


Not entirely sure what you expected from a discussion that is almost as polarizing as religion and politics, especially when you tend to use "this isn't up for discussion" type statements.


I'm pretty sure I included several time that it is my opinion. How many times do I have to say that? After every sentence? Every word? Shouldn't it be implied from the get go regardless?


It probably should be, but that's simply not realistic. However, IMO, there's always room for levity in any discussion. It's up to the participants to ignore and/or engage in whichever responses they wish.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 02:20:59 AM

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: 03/29/2024 02:20:59 AM EDT.