# Artsy or Fartsy?



## TWright33 (Mar 5, 2014)

Just wanting a vote on these two photos.

Are they artsy, or fartsy?

View attachment 68082View attachment 68083


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 5, 2014)

I voted "Artsy".

Then again, not being a moderator, I'm sure my vote doesn't count.

Is that a Benchmade Griptillian?


----------



## tirediron (Mar 5, 2014)

As 'Bacon' wasn't an option, I abstained. To be honest, these two images seem like nothing more than quick cell-phone snaps.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 5, 2014)

tirediron said:


> As 'Bacon' wasn't an option, I abstained. To be honest, these two images seem like nothing more than quick cell-phone snaps.



I disagree. 

But, since you see no artistic value to them, John, would you be kind enough to explain how such photos could have more of an artistic quality?

Could you explain what is and isn't "art"?

See, because, I had always been under the impression that art was subjective. You can imagine my surprise to learn that there's actually a committee which decides that...


----------



## Designer (Mar 5, 2014)

Yes, art is subjective.  These photographs are not very artistic.  

The pistol shot (no pun) is not posed well, not lighted well, and half of the firearm is hidden (but that end would be OOF anyway).

The knife (can we write that?) is also not posed well, and is underexposed.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 5, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> But, since you see no artistic value to them, John, would you be kind enough to explain how such photos could have more of an artistic quality?


Certainly.



Steve5D said:


> Could you explain what is and isn't "art"?


No; I can only explain what I see as art (hence the use of the word "seem" in my post.



Steve5D said:


> See, because, I had always been under the impression that art was subjective. You can imagine my surprise to learn that there's actually a committee which decides that...


It is; absolutely subjective. Again, I refer you to the use of the word 'seem' from which I expected other readers to infer that I was expressing an opinior rather than absolute fact. 

With respect to having artistic quality; in my opinion, one is unlikely to acheive artistic qualities without some forethought and planning. Again, my OPINION is that the images in the OP are quick snaps without any thought, planning or artistic intent.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 5, 2014)

wtf @ Steve? Did somebody drown your kitten this morning or something?

@OP, I think the gun photo is decent. A bit of a distracting background and scene. Looks like a car seat?? If you just took even that same blanket and draped it across something, you'd have less clutter. Either that or something detectably normal like a tabletop in a living room or a workbench or something. Would probably use a little more DOF to get more of the subject in focus.

The knife one is not as good. Background is sort of less distracting, but the photo is severely underexposed, and unlike the venetian blinds thing, there's no explanation here as to why. I can't make out what the knife looks like very easily. Also muddy dull brown isn't very exciting.


----------



## TWright33 (Mar 5, 2014)

tirediron said:


> With respect to having artistic quality; in my opinion, one is unlikely to acheive artistic qualities without some forethought and planning.  Again, my OPINION is that the images in the OP are quick snaps without any thought, planning or artistic intent.



Thank you for your opinion good sir. 

These are one of those pictures that are probably best suited for individuals that are fans of the product brand itself.

For instance, the knife is a Spyderco. Other than being infamous for a knife that is made right here in the USA- their knives are the only ones with the large finger hole in the blade. I purposely had it in focus due to this.

The M&P was simply sitting there in the cool looking light coming from the blinds. I had just bought my 50mm lens.

But hey, I shouldn't have to explain it right?


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 5, 2014)

tirediron said:


> [QIt is; absolutely subjective.  I again, I refer you to the use of the word 'seem' from which I expected other readers to infer that I was expressing an opinior rather than absolute fact.



Hmmmmm... I'm confused. Terri said that the moderators decide what's "artful" and what is not. Now you're saying it's subjective...


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 5, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> their knives are the only ones with the large finger hole in the blade.


Erm, dunno about that. Having holes in the blade is a pretty generic characteristic. For hanging, weight distribution, fingers, all sorts of stuff.
This is what I have in my pocket right now, as a matter of fact, which is not a Spyderco: http://code4shop.com/wp-content/themes/shopperpress/thumbs/skeletool-blade.jpg in this case 50% for weight 50% for leverage to open it with your finger.

Anyway, still a good composition choice to focus on that, for sure. But just more brightness.


----------



## TWright33 (Mar 5, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> TWright33 said:
> 
> 
> > their knives are the only ones with the large finger hole in the blade.
> ...



I guess I should have said that differently. They are the only ones with a large circle for the finger hole. 

I didn't mean for that to come off as holes in general. 

I think that is too obvious.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 5, 2014)

Poor composition on both, and the second one is underexposed. The first also has some distracting elements.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 5, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> wtf @ Steve? Did somebody drown your kitten this morning or something?
> 
> @OP, I think the gun photo is decent. A bit of a distracting background and scene. Looks like a car seat?? If you just took even that same blanket and draped it across something, you'd have less clutter. Either that or something detectably normal like a tabletop in a living room or a workbench or something. Would probably use a little more DOF to get more of the subject in focus.
> 
> The knife one is not as good. Background is sort of less distracting, but the photo is severely underexposed, and unlike the venetian blinds thing, there's no explanation here as to why. I can't make out what the knife looks like very easily. Also muddy dull brown isn't very exciting.



This is a better explanation of my thoughts, actually. And at the first sentence, Gav...


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 5, 2014)

Oh lawd here we go.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 5, 2014)

Looking closer at the first one, if you can move the gun a little more inboard on the chair so the only background is the arm and still maintain the Venetian blind look, that might be quite appealing. Also try setting your camera for +.7 or so EV, play with that a little bit and see what you like. It's got potential there.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 5, 2014)

Ok, as for the OP - since anything "artsy" gives me gas put me down for a yes vote on both.  As for the rest, really folks you might want to stop and think about this in terms of what is appropriate for the venue, not in terms of what is considered "artistic" enough, because truthfully from what I've seen that's what the Ops are actually attempting to evaluate here when it comes to firearms pictures.

I maybe wrong here but if I'm understanding the policy correctly it isn't the quality of the image that determines whether or not it meets the criteria for whether or not it should be posted, but rather does the posting/image itself somehow relate to photography.  I don't think they are evaluating these things based on exposure or composition or anything of that nature, rather they are trying to decide if the poster is posting it in a fashion that makes it appropriate for the venue.  

Or maybe a more simplistic version, I think the question to ask yourself is are you posting these because they somehow relate to a discussion of photography or are you posting them just so you can start a pissing contest?  If you can't honestly say yes to the former, well then you can't really blame the powers that be for taking action on the later.

Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV


----------



## runnah (Mar 5, 2014)

Nice knife, I have the 553 Tanto Griptilian in satin finish. Great knife.

553 Griptilian® Tanto Product Detail


----------



## tirediron (Mar 5, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > [QIt is; absolutely subjective. I again, I refer you to the use of the word 'seem' from which I expected other readers to infer that I was expressing an opinior rather than absolute fact.
> ...


Hmmm.... I get the feeling someone's being deliberately obstreperous this morning.  To clarify: The intent of Terri's statement was that moderators would make decisions about whether certain images were acceptable under the 'artistic firearms' rule.  That however too is subjective, since what I see as being artistic or not is going vary from what other moderators see.  As well, the intent of that rule, as I'm sure you are aware, is allow greater control over a potentially controversial subject, and NOT to exercise unilateral control over what may or may not be artistic in the true meaning of the phrase.


----------



## BrickHouse (Mar 5, 2014)

I have a similar shot of broken light through a set of blinds falling on a bowl of fruit. The background is probably cluttered in that one too. I could probably convince a few peope that it was "art". Crappy art, but art nonetheless. I guess I don't believe that the banana instead being a holstered pistol should change that perception. But then again, what do I know, I'm just a guy in uniform that carries one of those evil bang sticks.


----------



## Designer (Mar 5, 2014)

Art, being subjective, has a wide range of appeal.  When we offer a critique on a photograph, some like it and others pan it.  As to the issue of firearms, I understand it to be; if the photograph is primarily about the photograph, and not so much about the subject matter, then it is allowed.  

(Not a moderator)


----------



## TWright33 (Mar 5, 2014)

runnah said:


> Nice knife, I have the 553 Tanto Griptilian in satin finish. Great knife.
> 
> 553 Griptilian® Tanto Product Detail



Very nice sir. 

My next will be another Spyderco with assisted opening.



BrickHouse said:


> I have a similar shot of broken light through a set of blinds falling on a bowl of fruit. The background is probably cluttered in that one too. I could probably convince a few peope that it was "art". Crappy art, but art nonetheless. I guess I don't believe that the banana instead being a holstered pistol should change that perception. But then again, what do I know, I'm just a guy in uniform that carries one of those evil bang sticks.



Put the banana in a holster. There will be an eruption of chaos.


----------



## TWright33 (Mar 5, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> but rather does the posting/image itself somehow relate to photography.



I often like to think my photos are photography.....


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 5, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > but rather does the posting/image itself somehow relate to photography.
> ...



Well I think the original point is clear enough and honestly don't see any purpose in a ridiculous argument over semantics.

But in the interest of full disclosure I'm not a mod nor have I ever played one on Tv, so really I have no control over this either way.

Yes, I do find it very sad that such postings so often degenerate into snark so quickly and so often that a policy like that is even necessary.  But not a lot I can do about that other than recognize the reality of the situation.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 5, 2014)

maybe changing the TPF policy to allow pictures of guns was a mistake. 
before, it was simple. no guns. those threads and/or pictures could simply be deleted  with no more justification needed other than citing the forums "no gun" policy. 
it was an easy rule to define, and did not leave any grounds for interpretation. 

Now however...allowing guns has opened up the Mods to a whole new level of criticism where not only do we have to hear from offended anti-gun people, but also from the people who are offended by the people offended by their gun pictures. 

we have put ourselves in a position where we have to brace for the inevitable flurry of reports on _*any*_ thread containing gun pictures, because no matter how "artistic" the photographers intentions may have been, _*someone *_is going to say it needs to be removed. On the other hand, there are also the people that will post random snapshots and defend it to the bitter end claiming it as "art". 

so now look what us mods are stuck with... we have to define "art".  you all can make whatever jokes or accusations you want, but I assure  you, this is a crappy position to be in. no matter what decision we make concerning any gun picture or thread, we are going to catch hell from the opposing side. We have to suffer through the PM rants, reported posts, and even open threads ridiculing us for trying to do the best we can with a seemingly impossible task. 


Personally, as much a "gun person" as I am, I think we were better off with the "no gun" policy.  there is simply no way to moderate gun pictures without this uproar happening every time someones picture gets deleted. I see no end in sight since there is no way to put a definitive definition on "art".


----------



## TWright33 (Mar 5, 2014)

Designer said:


> if the photograph is primarily about the photograph, and not so much about the subject matter, then it is allowed.
> 
> (Not a moderator)



I know you're not a mod, and this isn't directed toward you or anyone-

BUT

I _hope _this isn't the actual mindset behind it.


----------



## otherprof (Mar 5, 2014)

I think it is a mistake to include in the meaning of "art" the notion of it being good or worth looking at. I want to be able to talk about good art and bad art - which may be subjective - and don't want to paint myself into a corner by including something like "valuable" or "good" in the concept of art. If it is on the wall in a museum, or signed, or titled, or presented as art, it is art. (I think Arthur Danto made these points in his essay "The Artworld.") "Is it worth looking at?" or "Is it worth more than a glance?" is where the disagreement comes in and the food gets thrown. "Artful" is a really puzzling word. Does it mean "well crafted"? That would open another can of worms. Sorry if this is not directly on the point, but I think it is relevant. BTW, my Spyderco Delica was made in Seiki City, where the Samuri swords were made. It is well crafted, and I can use the hole in the blade to easily hang it on the wall and turn it into a work of art.


----------



## Designer (Mar 5, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> I _hope _this isn't the actual mindset behind it.



I don't know if I ever read those actual words, but that was my understanding of the general mindset of the administrators when they loosened the rule.


----------



## weepete (Mar 5, 2014)

The definition of art is pretty difficult to pin down and yes it does have some element of subjectivity. I don't like putting limits on it either as that can also lead us down some dangerous paths.

However one thing that all art has is common is the expression (or attempt) to comunicate an emotion or concept. In photography it can pretty much be split into two camps, what I'd define as traditional or in other words pretty pictures that we like to hang on walls and conceptual, in which the idea behind the picture is what the artist is trying to communicate. 

These two shots don't seem to have much of an idea behind them (though I'll admit that I might not be understanding the intent or interperating them correctly) but neithier do the fit the bill of the traditional pretty picture lacking in the elements of design and composition. That's why.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 5, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> Personally, as much a "gun person" as I am, I think we were better off with the "no gun" policy.  there is simply no way to moderate gun pictures without this uproar happening every time someones picture gets deleted. I see no end in sight since there is no way to put a definitive definition on "art".



If you can moderate photos having to do with nudity, guns should be a walk in the park...


----------



## tirediron (Mar 5, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, as much a "gun person" as I am, I think we were better off with the "no gun" policy. there is simply no way to moderate gun pictures without this uproar happening every time someones picture gets deleted. I see no end in sight since there is no way to put a definitive definition on "art".
> ...


Steve: The moderators are volunteers who follow the direction of the website owners. If you don't like the way things are being done, you have two alternatives: (1) Contact the 'site owners and request that they change their policies, or (2) try a different forum with rules more to your liking. I think that overall things work pretty well around here, and as _*VOLUNTEERS*_, we on the moderating team do our best to keep a happy balance so that most people are pleased most of the time. I'm sorry that you don't find it to your liking, but as with all things democratic, the needs and wants of the few don't outweigh the needs and wants of the many, and the wants of the owners trump both of those.

This thread also has two choices:  It can return to the original discussion, or it can be locked.  I'm good either way.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 5, 2014)

tirediron said:


> the needs and wants of the few don't outweigh the needs and wants of the many



And thus we concluded today's game of  Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock.

Lol


----------



## epeddy1 (Mar 5, 2014)

From a newbie perspective, the first one looks like there was an attempt to be artsy with the unusual lighting effect with blinds or whatever.  Also the angle at which it was shot.  If it was purely documentary or a "cell phone quicky snapshot" and not meant to look "pretty" hence "artsy" they would've been straight on shots with a blinding flash.  So yes, some artsy to them IMO.  Not my cup-of-tea however, so I wouldn't call it good or interesting art for my tastes.


----------



## epeddy1 (Mar 5, 2014)

In general (again as a newbie), when talking about "art" in a photography context (and not good vs bad art), I think the definition is much more lax but easier defined than other forms of visual art.  In my mind, it comes down to the thought process a photographer goes through to create the picture.  Are they capturing a moment only to document it?  Most people take pictures this way.  Snap a picture of your kid blowing out candles so you remember and post it on Facebook.  Or are they capturing a moment and trying to make it look interesting, beautiful, etc?  Fewer people do this.  Turn down the lights, get a tripod, and capture the moment of your kid blowing out the candles.  Not saying there's any requirement for fancy equipment or time, just as long as the photographer is attempting to make the moment "beautiful" (subjectively) rather than simply documenting it.  I think most people who take the time to join this forum and post their pictures fit into the later almost by default.  Facebook is for the former.  But that's just me!


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 5, 2014)

Well in this case the artsy part is more in whats in the picture rather then then picture it self.I really have to go with fartsy on this one. I think propping them up agains a dark back and use of good lighting and no holster they can be terrific. Kinda of like good watch photography.

Just some ideas here with some mind blowing pics. http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/96587-how-photograph-gun.html


----------



## DirtyDawg (Mar 8, 2014)

Good luck defining art. Just because one person declares a cross in a jar of urine as art doesn't mean I have to see it as art. 

Guns: why not treat it as NSFW/nudity, a special forum just for the subject matter?  Don't like guns? Ok, don't visit that area. Love guns? Welcome to that area of the forum!

At least I'm from the USA where people can post what they want and talk openly about guns, sexual preferences, race and religion. Where are you all from?  Oh wait, WTF happened to my country?!

Well at least respect the fact that this forum can run itself however it sees fit and if they do something that makes several valuable members mad and they leave, well that is at their risk but it is their forum so let the mods do what they want and respect that. Too much to ask perhaps.

I can't declare the first photo art or not. I can say I like it.  The second is too dark unless you were going for a specific effect that you didn't feel the need to explain.  I mean if it is blown up to be a large display at a trade show booth where everyone at the booth would know exactly what they're looking at then it may serve its purpose perfectly.

Don't take anything too personally though.  If you post photos asking for comments, be ready for comments of all flavors!


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 8, 2014)

DirtyDawg said:


> Good luck defining art.



Easy enough. Art (Noun) : Any expression or application of human creativite skill that involves dogs seated at a poker table.

Seriously, not rocket science.. lol




> At least I'm from the USA where people can post what they want and talk openly about guns, sexual preferences, race and religion. Where are you all from? Oh wait, WTF happened to my country?!



Well yes and no really, and you also have to consider the fact that there are some topics that just really aren't proper to take up in certain venues. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big advocate of free speech and free expression, but there is also a proper time and place issue to consider. I like the idea of having a seperate forum for such things, and I'm not sure how the TPF software works but it does have the ability to do a subscribers area, my question is does it have different subscriber levels? The reason I ask, I'm wondering if it would be possible to have a level that you could subscribe to for free and thus "opt in" on seeing that area, and if you don't you wouldn't see it at all. That way those that wanted to participate could and those who didn't wouldn't have to go out of their way to avoid it. 

Just a thought.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 8, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> Just wanting a vote on these two photos.
> 
> Are they artsy, or fartsy?
> 
> View attachment 68082View attachment 68083



I like that 1st pic. For the sake of BS internet critique, I may have had the light reflection angle running down the gun in a direction such as the gun would be pointed.  But then again you may have intentionally angled you lights and gun this way, and I'm 180 degrees out of phase in my head


----------



## Nevermore1 (Mar 8, 2014)

Didn't vote because the option I would have wanted wasn't provided.  The first one has potential but needs some work.  The second one is too dark to even comment on.


----------

