# Art Appreciation



## Rob (May 17, 2006)

Ok, here goes.... hopefully I can make a number of vague points and you can disagree with them. 

Have a look at this randomly chosen internet sample:
http://www.artexpressed.com/images/GoalsDolphin.jpg

You have hopefully seen this or an identical thing elsewhere in poster shops.

Do you hate it? I do.

Why do I hate it so? 

Not solely because it uses a gut-wrenchingly unpleasant motivational message to make up for the fact it's essentially an aesthetic graphic, not art.

I hate it, because of the number of people who would think that's the BEST thing they've ever seen photographically. (Right now, I could call up my mate with a boat who's into deep sea fishing and seek a sunrise or sunset and a bit of luck with dolphins... With a bit of luck and a bit of dolphin attracting behaviour, I'm pretty confident I could recreate that shot within a shortish time frame. I bet you all could as well.) - not really the point though. 

When you produce your art, be it music, painting, photography (most likely!)... are you going for emotional impact, a communication, a message, perhaps intellectual interraction with someone, hidden meanings, depths... I certainly try to. The rest of the time, its a snapshot.

Or.... perhaps you would prefer the lowest common denominator to worship the ground you walked on, because you captured two cliches at once - a dolphin AND a bloody sunset? What next, a deer in front of a waterfall?

So, am I being elitist here? Hmm, seems certain really. But, and here's the crux of my conundrum... Is it vital that, if scrutinised, your content is widely understood, would you "get" it? Or do artists produce work for artists, critics and students to appreciate alone. Where does the balance between communicating with your audience and being widely misunderstood get struck? Are you wrong to make a point which the vast majority will never get? Do you produce art for yourself, by an inner drive or perhaps for money? 

Perhaps I should seek help?  Anyone else see or get what I'm rambling incoherently about?

Thanks for bothering to get this far. Now argue please!!

Rob


----------



## Arch (May 17, 2006)

ok rob..... seriously.... do you realise what agro this thread is gonna cause  ...... i really try to avoid any in depth conversation on a forum about what i think is art...... the trouble is, i suppose i am kinda elitist aswell...... i spent 5 years of my life at art college so to me an uneducated opinion is a non arguement (this doesn't mean you cant self teach of course)..... i mean the people who arn't bothered about the meanings of paintings, sculptures and images which have been in the public eye for centuries, but are all to quick to give an opinion when a debate starts.

Anywhoo...... i also find the image you linked to quite distasteful.... even kitsch... but as for the ease of going out and capturing it, i have similar arguements for wildlife photogs.

Alot of people dont consider a detailed shot of a wild eagle for example as difficult or of taking great skill to achive...... i disagree. I could go out in the next hour, take a picture of a park bench at a low angle..... good dof.... convert it to b+w..... hey presto... 'art' within 1 hour...... now if i said im gonna go out for an hour and get a shot of an eagle (even if i had all the right equiptment) i would probably come back with nothing...... maybe a small shape of an eagle sat in a cluttered tree....... why?..... because it takes skill and an understanding of wild 'life' to know where to go, how to capture it etc....... 

so when it comes to skill or time spent on captures i dont think there is a clear arguement either way, you could capture a masterpiece in 10 mins or spend 3 months trying to get the shot you want.

ok here's the really contraversial bit now...... to me in the hierarchy of the art world photography is near the bottom of the list. If i go to an art gallery i dont make a b-line for the photog section..... i wanna see the paintings first.... followed by the sculptures and modern art pieces...... followed by the installations...... then its a toss up between the short film and visual art..... and the photog......
When it come to the turner prize every year...... i often dont find enough in contemporary photog to win me over....... again i prefer the paintings and the sculptures (although it does depend whats on offer in that year!).....

I mean dont get me wrong i still love photog.... but for me it isn't for the niche group of artists anymore..... its been watered down..... just as the digital age kicks in, we can see it everywhere..... everyone with a computer can do graphic design all of a sudden..... (what happened to letraset and and hand drawn illustration) and im affraid to say photog is going the same way...... (anybody in a company with a point and shoot can do the photog for the company advertising) gone are the days when it takes true dedication, skill and artistic tallent to produce a piece worthy of an exhibition or gallery piece..... it can be done with minimal training.

I love photog for what it is to me....... creating images which mean somthing to me or i think can evoke a reaction in others... if the end result is regarded as art or a snap shot is kinda Irrelavant to me...... and the same goes for viewing other peoples photog..... some i think is better than the photog thinks it is.... other images say less than the photog intended. Its subjective, we all know that right  ........ ok end rant.

^^I dont know if any of that makes sense... but i cant be arsed to go back and edit it


----------



## KevinR (May 17, 2006)

Here is a question. What do you think the photographer that took the shot feels about that image? 
Maybe it was just a stock shot to make money, so if this is the case and he never pretended it to be fine or high art. What do you think of it now?

To each his own on what you like. Technically, it is a fine image. (especially if it wasn't photoshopped ). If everybody had good taste, there would not be "pop" music .

Personnally, I don't really care for the image. It does nothing for me and frankly I wouldn't really give it a second thought. Just not for me. But I do know what I like and I feel good photography can be a fine art medium. I don't rank the art forms. I give equal attention to the different mediums. (except installations )


----------



## Rob (May 17, 2006)

KevinR said:
			
		

> Here is a question. What do you think the photographer that took the shot feels about that image?
> Maybe it was just a stock shot to make money, so if this is the case and he never pretended it to be fine or high art. What do you think of it now?



Absolutely, the image is just a demonstration of that type of picture. All credit to anyone who can make money in this world.... However, it is people's perception that I was alluding to.

Excellent point about pop music too. Mr Blobby was at #1 after all. 

Rob


----------



## 2framesbelowzero (May 17, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> ok rob..... seriously.... do you realise what agro this thread is gonna cause  ......



Exactly. Let me know the conclusion of the this thread.  

oO("art is art, and everything else is everything else")


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 17, 2006)

interesting question is art only what I think it is.... maybe so.


----------



## craig (May 18, 2006)

Hate may be the wrong word. 

The age old question. 

The photo is kind of like McDonald's food. It tastes good, but it is not good for you. Then again I think that who am I to judge. I consider that there are many different levels of art. I shoot commercial, editorial and personal work. All are different, but all are my personal best. Someone shoots a dolphin jumping into the sunset. Makes a fortune. I say more power to them. Some people like cheesy photos. Some work at their craft and forsake the cheese. Point is that there is no correct answer. That is the beauty of it.


----------



## LaFoto (May 18, 2006)

But there should be an answer as to what art is and how it is defined.

A different matter is to discuss what is beautiful and what is not beautiful.
That is a matter of tastes and therefore simply CANNOT be discussed.
For some people find this photo (if it is one, I cannot quite tell) "absolutely beautiful, wow", while others, like Rob, even feel a little offended by its kitschy cliché character (and I tend to share his opinion on this sort of images). But I have a friend somewhere in this world who keeps sending me such images in e-mail, with unicorns in mystic woods and other such things that are on the same line (to my mind) as this dolphin swimming towards the setting sun, and he apparently finds these ever so beautiful that he needs to share them. 

Now I get them and forget them.
My 13-year-old daughter, however, just LOVES them.
I say that goes with her age --- cheesy things are much appreciated by teenage girls.

I hope, though, that her tastes will get more refined in the course of time and she will start to appreciate other things, more artistic things.

And here we come back to what is art?
And I think that when something is art, there is more to it than the immediate foreground, more than just the immediate image that makes us say "Wow, how beautiful", like this dolphin-into-the-sunset pic might make a good many people say. 

Like in poetry, where language helps to "condense" the thoughts and emotions of the poet, and to focus on something special with the means of language, in other forms of art this should be represented, too. So to my mind art is a form where there is more "underneath" than what immediately meets the eye, and I am having my doubts that this is the case with the dolphin-meets-the-setting-sun pic.


----------



## Luke (May 18, 2006)

"gone are the days when it takes true dedication, skill and artistic tallent to produce a piece worthy of an exhibition or gallery piece..... it can be done with minimal training."
i disagree, while it might be easier to get lucky with a shot, because you can take a bagillion digital pictures and get one good one, it still takes skills to be consistent, and talent.  you have to be creative
'well yeah but you can make a bad shot good in PS'
you still need to know what your doing, you can't change composition in PS, you can't go back and capture your subject 1 second before in PS, you CAN edit landscape photos and make em look better, but im not to concerned, if anything i think it will push the style further, just think, what's amazing now, will be a dolphin and a sunset in 10 yrs time.  enjoy it.


----------



## Arch (May 18, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> "gone are the days when it takes true dedication, skill and artistic tallent to produce a piece worthy of an exhibition or gallery piece..... it can be done with minimal training."
> i disagree, while it might be easier to get lucky with a shot, because you can take a bagillion digital pictures and get one good one, it still takes skills to be consistent, and talent.



Let me clarify..... what i mean by minimal training, is not a quick rundown of a cameras functions..... i meant like a 2 year foundation collage course.... in a photographers career this would still be considered minimal training, and yes some of these people do leave college without going on to higher courses and decide to hold public exhibitions as 'artists'.

Also i would say you can make a bad shot good in ps?


----------



## Torus34 (May 18, 2006)

LaFoto:  Noted the new thumbnail.  The incisors suggest a possible problem with overbite.

On beauty, I agree whole-heartedly.  De gustibus non est disputandum.

On Art:  Art should be [must be?] grounded in the inner reality of the artist -- the world as the artist sees it, not as it objectively is.

It is this which gives the artist his/her 'voice.'  Great artists 'speak' with such a different voice that their work is identifiable and assignable.

On photography as a medium: I cannot in good conscience rank the mediums through which the artist may choose to express such statements.  Picasso could do it with colored paper and scissors, for goodness sakes!

Luke: on the comment of a 'bagillion' shots -- it's a statistical fact that given enough monkeys typing on enough word processors for a long enough time, they will eventually come up with "How do I love thee?  Let me count the ways. . ."  This does not diminish Will Shakespeare's talent, nor the artistic quality of the poem, by a single iota.


----------



## Rob (May 18, 2006)

Torus34 said:
			
		

> LaFoto:  Noted the new thumbnail.  The incisors suggest a possible problem with overbite.
> 
> On beauty, I agree whole-heartedly.  De gustibus non est disputandum.
> 
> ...



I thought it was if you took a room and put a thousand monkeys in it with a thousand typewriters and came back a few years later.....





... you'd have a room full of dead monkeys.


... sorry

Rob


----------



## Digital Matt (May 18, 2006)

Frankly, I think it's a beautiful photo, and I'd be proud to have been the photographer.


----------



## Rob (May 18, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Frankly, I think it's a beautiful photo, and I'd be proud to have been the photographer.



Indeed it is a beautiful photo - well composed, sharp etc. I happen to have quite a liking for both dolphins and sunsets, however, not together in a motivational poster  

Photos of sunsets and kitsch aren't my favourite things. My point really was that I don't yet "get" the balance between art, beauty and popularity. The example picture isn't intended to be something I'm slagging off, I'm sure the capturer is making a very nice living from it and I'm quite confident that many people would really really like it in every way - and I'm not judging them to be the worse for that.

My point, although quite roundabout and perhaps not entirely without prevarication, was that I believe it to be the art equivilent of the architectural "stone cladding" - painfully, incredibly and mind-numbingly trite. Very popular, however still vacuous.

I'm probably being a pretentious ........, but I do like to bounce ideas off people to alter and adjust my own opinions. Disagreeing is what makes people interesting, and hopefully anyone who has bothered to read this far has been vaguely interested and at the very least thought about it.

Rob


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 18, 2006)

I am glad that I lived long enough to see a time that every man with a 2000 bucks to spend on a camera can be an artist.  It is nice to know that with  your nikon they pack the soul of an artist... just add water...


----------



## KevinR (May 18, 2006)

> I am glad that I lived long enough to see a time that every man with a 2000 bucks to spend on a camera can be an artist. It is nice to know that with your nikon they pack the soul of an artist... just add water...


I am not sure if this is tongue in cheek or not.

I think alot of people have the soul of an artist, they just have not found a way to express that soul.

I wonder if it is the context that we find that type of shot that is "kitsch". If this where a series of shots in National Geographic, would we feel a little differently?


----------



## LaFoto (May 18, 2006)

I tend to doubt a photo of this kind would appear in National Geographic...


----------



## Rob (May 18, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> I am glad that I lived long enough to see a time that every man with a 2000 bucks to spend on a camera can be an artist. It is nice to know that with your nikon they pack the soul of an artist... just add water...



I'm not listening to someone who doesn't have a "pro" badge. :lmao:

Rob


----------



## Rob (May 18, 2006)

KevinR said:
			
		

> I am not sure if this is tongue in cheek or not.
> 
> I think alot of people have the soul of an artist, they just have not found a way to express that soul.
> 
> I wonder if it is the context that we find that type of shot that is "kitsch". If this where a series of shots in National Geographic, would we feel a little differently?



Paragraph #1 If I know Charlie.... it's tongue in cheek

#2 Absolutely

#3 I rather think not. And I suspect that you're not likely to see something like that any time soon.

Rob


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 18, 2006)

Oh you mean that I didn't waste those thirty years in trying to figure it all out.  I thought from a comment on this thread earlier that it was the time of man, when anyone who bought a fancy DSLR was automatically an artist.  I joined the discussion rather late...Sorry for the confusion...


----------



## Rob (May 18, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> Oh you mean that I didn't waste those thirty years in trying to figure it all out. I thought from a comment on this thread earlier that it was the time of man, when anyone who bought a fancy DSLR was *automatically an artist*.  I joined the discussion rather late...Sorry for the confusion...



It rather depends if you think like Marcel and aren't allowed to **** in it.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 18, 2006)

I have never been charged with thinking like anyone else lol.....Most of the time I don't think at all....

But I do think that selling a person a DSLR without a warning tag is right up there with selling cigarettes to kids without warning labels

Warning: owning this Nikon camera does not make you a expert photographer let alone an artist, and may be hazardous to your health: if you say look at my big camera .... oh I have no idea what an fstop is.... I don't need to know I have a F***** Nikon...You may get your donkey kicked


----------



## Torus34 (May 18, 2006)

Hey, guys and gals! Mystery Scribe is making a point here. Attention must be paid. There is a tendency for tyros to feel that a better camera will result in better prints. That's brought to heel by noting that if only van Gogh could have afforded better brushes and pigments . . .

[Side comment to Mystery Scribe: I know that you don't need an apologist, but this just cried out for clarification.]


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 18, 2006)

Hell terri has to usually run interference for me.... thanks for the help....

Well van gogh could have used a better shrink his brother must have really sucked


----------



## terri (May 18, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> Hell terri has to usually run interference for me.... thanks for the help....
> 
> Well van gogh could have used a better shrink his brother must have really sucked


You're just trying to see if I'm lurking here by forcing a comment! Well, it won't work. 






....dammit! :x


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 18, 2006)

no no this is what i say when i want you to comment... my god you are cute....


----------



## JohnMF (May 18, 2006)

Maybe fashion has something to do with it? Photos of dolpins, red ferraris, and bare chested men holding a baby in B&W all remind me of the eighties, and the eighties was a pretty ugly decade. Maybe that's why you can respond bad to a certain type/piece of art? Letting it influence your judgement


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 18, 2006)

I look back over the years at my neg file and am amazed at all the shots and the statistical relationship between real art and crap...


----------



## Luke (May 19, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> Let me clarify..... what i mean by minimal training, is not a quick rundown of a cameras functions..... i meant like a 2 year foundation collage course.... in a photographers career this would still be considered minimal training, and yes some of these people do leave college without going on to higher courses and decide to hold public exhibitions as 'artists'.
> 
> Also i would say you can make a bad shot good in ps?


hehe, some photographers are self taught, some good ones, very talented, anyway, bottom line is, if a crap photographer can be good cos of digital, imagine how good a talented photographer will be, i don't think this will brng any sort of revolution.

(i can't believe im defending digital, this from the guy who's idea of fun is breaking out the delta 400 and going to the CBD, or going to the darkroom at lunch)


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 19, 2006)

1860 comment by watercolorist... the Fkn camera thingie is a flash in the pan....

1910... comment by portrait painter... woe is me that Eastman thing is going to fix it so we never sell another painting. It is just matter of time...

1940... Comment by 4x5 graflex photographer... mark my words the 120 camera will put an end to photography as a business, anyone will be able to have one. If any idiot can shoot ten shots he will get one good one. It is the end of serious photography.

1960... comment by 120 photographer... Damn 35mm will kill us all. If they ever get the film right it will mean any idiot can go out and shoot 200 shots of his friend's wedding and we will be out of business, mark my words. That's not to mention the idot Land's toy camera putting all the labs out of business.

1999... Comment by the ghost of them all in a huddle.... Okay we were wrong before but by god digital cameras will mark the end of all other forms of art. We just don't need anything else. Any piece of crap anyone shoots can be fixed in the software.
**************
The only problem is art and artistry has always been about what you shoot, or what you paint, more than what kind of brush or camera you did it with. You can't sell that as a camera accessory and sometimes you can't even teach it. I would made a pretty good guess that the number of successful "art" photographers is much less then the number of people who graduate from the Schools teaching you how to be an artist.

And art school drop outs arent the only ones pretending to be artists. In the end "THE WORK SPEAKS FOR ITSELF". When the piece hits it's home, on someone's wall or in a museum even, I have never seen a label that tells what camera, what fstop, what brush, what paper, or how the artist held his brush...

listen up I'll say it again.... THE WORK SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.....

Sometimes it is more about marketing than the work and that is sad. A painter in this area comes to mind. They say he is a great draftsman, but not a real artist. I tend to agree because I to would like to make the money he makes and therefore I too am envious. It might not be art but it hangs in might fancy places, and he might wrongly consider himself an artist, but he doesn't worry about paying his car payment next month. 

One last thing on a personal note.... If Art were about perfection, there would be about zero pieces made previous to today. I see an awful lot of digital photography these days and you know what. I can usually tell that it is because there is so much perfection. Don't cha think that this kind of cookie cutter perfection will tend to get boring after a while. There are about a thousand ways to process an image that is well composed and well executed even with digital. The old house on the beach that we all played with comes to mind. But a piece of crap no matter how you wrap it still smells after a while. To a real artist the media never made a heck of a lot of difference and to us hacks it didn't either. So digital in the end isn't going to change a thing but the way people do what they always did.

You see it, you shoot (compose) it, you process it, and then it is an orphan and has to stand on it's own.


----------



## bigfatbadger (May 19, 2006)

Surely half of it is the fact that a) it's a motivational poster and b) it's been done about a million times before?


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 19, 2006)

Ya know thats true about been done and SOLD a hundred times before... It's the same reason burger king restaurants are within sight of McDonalds.  That's commerce not art though unless a big mac is an art object.... na it's an object of lust...


----------



## terri (May 19, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> 1860 comment by watercolorist... the Fkn camera thingie is a flash in the pan....
> 
> 1910... comment by portrait painter... woe is me that Eastman thing is going to fix it so we never sell another painting. It is just matter of time...
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: or even: :hail: 

and this: 





> That's not to mention the idot Land's toy camera putting all the labs out of business.


 leave Edwin out of it, damn you!


----------



## JamesD (May 19, 2006)

Everyone keeps say that this image has been done counteless, sickening times before.

I'd like to point out.  this is, in fact, the only time this image has been done.  Many copies of it have been made, and many similar images have been made, but this one is it's own.

Yes, the "inspirational message" is cheesy.  I don't contest that.  I believe it's a non-issue, because the consensus seems to be that it's cheesy.

With that said...  this is a dolphin picture, and many people have taken dolphin pictures.  It's a sunset picture, and many people have taken sunset pictures.  I've no doubt that the two have even been taken together in a similar manner.

How many pictures of the Eiffel tower are there?  How many landscapes?  How many pictures of old buildings? Horses?

How many impressionist paintings of people have been made?  How many paintings of nudes?  How many sculptures of people and gods and mythological characters have been made?  How many cathedrals have been built?  How many tapestries woven?

Yes, it's a dolphin + sunset picture.  It's got nice colors.  It might not be the best art in the world, it might not be as impressive as Ansel Adams' Yosemite photos, Picasso's paintings, or Shakespeare's sonnets.

What _is_ so impressive?  One in a thousand?  One in a million? A thousand million?  The work has to speak for itself.  Listen to what this one says about itself.  I hear this: "I'm a dolphin jumping out of the water in front of a sunset-looking sky.  Somebody cared enough make me so someone else could see me, too."  You may hear something different.

If you don't like what you hear, don't buy it.  If you do, help feed a photographer.

Please don't misunderstand; I'm not trying to come across as being irritated, angry or anything.  I'm merely reflecting on the subject.... and I believe this one (granted, the text is cheesy) is being given a bit too hard a time.

I mean, I'm a landlubber, and I've never seen a dolphin in person.  And it's got pretty colors, for crying out loud!


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 19, 2006)

damnit james there is no such thing as the nude being over done.  Jeeze have you learning nothing rofl.

Sunset ect okay, but not nudes....


----------



## Digital Matt (May 19, 2006)

Well said James.


----------



## JohnMF (May 19, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> damnit james there is no such thing as the nude being over done. Jeeze have you learning nothing rofl.
> 
> Sunset ect okay, but not nudes....


 
Yes but what about a nude dolphin in front of a sunset????


----------



## bigfatbadger (May 19, 2006)

Do you think that although this particular image hasn't been done before, because it's constituents have, it is already regarded as cliche? 

Like James, I'm not being provocative, just musing


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 19, 2006)

Now I have not said anything about the image itself. Here is my openion..

Some of you know I shoot poster 'art' now and then. I think poster art is a breed unto itself. It is more commercial in nature and must appeal to the masses, since the plan is for it to be sold several times, in most cases. Trite and overly simple themes are what makes it sell... It's a heck of a lot like tv. Dummy it down.

I would not hang a poster of a starlet in a bikini on my dinning room wall, but I might pay for one to hang in my workshop. There are my two criteria for art... would I pay for it, low commericial art.... would I hang it in my formal dining room, higher form of art... For everyone those criteria are personal, but if you think about it some art (poster) is meant for bedroom doors mostly in teenaged boy's rooms, and some paintings are meant for the walls of the formal areas of a house.

The big fish and orange sun are the commercial type. I wouldn't really buy it, so I don't really think a lot of it, but a lot of people would. I would definitely shoot it and sell it gladly. In which case I would call it art. I don't think i would take it to a high end festival though. 

God help me I know I'm in for it now, but to me it is more flea market art... No Reverand Spuds isn't even that high up on the art food chain. rofl

To summerize: Hertzburger had it right, or the victorians did, there is Art and there is art. And keep you hand on you wallet while shopping for art.  And I am being provocative.


----------



## JamesD (May 19, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> damnit james there is no such thing as the nude being over done.  Jeeze have you learning nothing rofl.
> 
> Sunset ect okay, but not nudes....



Of course not, I'd never imply that!

Seriously, though, I have to somewhat disagree.  There's another forum I visit where lots and lots of figure photography is posted, although it's not specifically a figure photography forum.  Frankly, after watching the posts over the months, I find that I usually skip posts which refer to nudes, figure photos, or models whom I know to be figure models, at least until I'm done with the more generalized posts.  The other images are more interesting to me, because I've seen entirely too many of the genera, and my interests are _much_ broader than that.

Are they bad photos?  Not by any means whatsoever:  I wish I had the skills and/or talent and/or luck to produce such imagery.  Are they overdone? Given this particular context, along with my own _personal_ tastes and interests, I'd say "yes, I'd like to see more images of a wider range of subjects."

It is in the eye of the beholder, and also in the experience of the beholder.  If you see nudes, or dolphins, or whatever until you're just tired of seeing them, then you may develop a distaste for them, even if the images excel in aesthetics and originality.  In my case, I certainly hope that such a distaste is temporary, so that some day in the future, when I'm not so bored with them, I can once again enjoy the marvellous images these photogs have created.  I'd be saddened greatly to be permanantly deprived of their enjoyment.

By the way, Charlie: thanks for providing some of the phrasing for which I'd been searching.  I hadn't quite found it on my own yet (too obvious, yanno?) and I needed it before I could figure out exactly what I was trying to say.  That's why I hadn't posted previously, even though I've been following this thread pretty closely, at the same time as our little discussion over yonder.


----------



## JamesD (May 19, 2006)

JohnMF said:
			
		

> Yes but what about a nude dolphin in front of a sunset????



LMFAO!


----------



## 2framesbelowzero (May 19, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> i meant like a 2 year foundation collage course....




 lol That's pretty intensive!
 Have some damn fine collage at the end of that one. :thumbup: 


Montage..don't get me started about montage...


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 19, 2006)

I think we all need to step back have a beer and rethink this whole thing rofl...  We are getting punch here...


----------



## Torus34 (May 20, 2006)

Going back to the start of this thread, it seems to have concerned Art versus non-Art. [Caps intentional. We're talking about the concern of the Muses here.]

So let me propose a fresh starting point.

First, the artist. An artist creates a work [medium not of importance here, though some are more refractory than others.] in order to make a statement of some sort. There are greater and lesser artists. The greatest often have a recognizable 'voice' -- Beethoven, Copland, Hemmingway, Issa, Picasso, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, Vaughan Williams and Frank Lloyd Wright will serve as examples.

Next, the work. Art can be ranked. Great art makes profound statements. Lesser art makes statements that have less to 'say.' It's a continuum, you see; certainly not a simple dichotomy. The dolphin/sunset print can easily squeak in under this definition though, like a lot of 'poster art', its statement may be trivial. There is much that can be considered as art in which the artist simply says 'I feel that this is beautiful.' It may in fact be the lowest rung of a ranking ladder. If so, the next rung up may be works which convey a feeling [turmoil, serenity] and the next those which encompass an emotion [anger, love.]


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 20, 2006)

Excellent summation of what everyone has said.  There is ART and there is art.. and there are authors. Its all rock and roll to me.  Don't eat the tuna is all I can tell ya.

We all explored parts of the issue and could do it forever because as someone's tag line says, it's all subjective.


----------



## Luke (May 20, 2006)

Torus34 said:
			
		

> Luke: on the comment of a 'bagillion' shots -- it's a statistical fact that given enough monkeys typing on enough word processors for a long enough time, they will eventually come up with "How do I love thee?  Let me count the ways. . ."  This does not diminish Will Shakespeare's talent, nor the artistic quality of the poem, by a single iota.



Please excuse me for this:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! YOU n0000000b!!!! shakespeare didn't write that poem!!!!! Elizabeth Barret Browning nubcake.
BEsides, my point was, that just because the inexperienced can create something beautiful everyonce in a while, doesnt pose a threat to the dedicated. I don't see what monkeys replicating shakespeare *cough* browning *cough*  has to do with that at all.  
anyway sorry bout that, stepped a bit outa line, took it a bit to far, but i had to pwn you there, couldn't resist .


----------



## JamesD (May 20, 2006)

Puerility aside, the point remains, and it's this:  If you take a thousand shots, with at least marginal control of exposure and post-processing (particularly with the powerful tools we use, and which any novice can use, though perhaps not as well), then you're bound to eventually wind up with at least one image that's halfway decent, and perhaps even pretty good.

The point is, the process is, at least to some degree, accidental.

Introduce skill into the process, and the results will be much more consistent--and more to the point, _deliberate_.

It's not a matter of the professional being threatened by the amateur.  It's a matter of wading through the flood of mediocrity, and a matter of dealing with the conceited amateur (or n00'b, to use your eloquent term) thinking that because his or her occasional accident is perhaps as good as the skilled practitioner's deliberate and consistently repeated excellence, that the conceited amateur is therefore the skilled practitioner's equal.  This is clearly not the case.

The novice or amateur who is not conceited and is willing to learn and improve in a deliberate manner; or who recognizes his own level of skill and where it stands on the scale, not seeking to artificially elevate it to a point he has not yet attained.... this is another case entirely.  Such an artist is worthy of attention.

And now, I'm going to place my attention on something less unworthy.


----------



## panzershreck (May 20, 2006)

i'll weigh in with my opinion

honestly i don't care about the "commercial" or "accidental" aspect of art as a disadvantage in anyway, in fact i think it's an advantage, in a sense everytime i go out to take a picture i'm merely going by intuition and accident, the only skilled part of my process is my knowledge of the camera and my ability to say "no" to taking a picture, something anybody who is 100% dedicated to film (at the moment) has to live by... in my drawing most things are accidents, the only difference between me and say - some guy off the street, is that i know how to draw with some tools, and he doesn't, i'm positive that if that random guy was interested in learning how to use drawing tools and motivated to learn how to approach drawing in his own way, he'd probably be better than I am

the thing is that the photo with the dolphin in it IS a good photo, if some random guy popped up on here with it people would be praising him for it, however corny it may seem... it's not National Geographic worthy of course, but then most photos - artistic or not - aren't worthy, simply out of the approach the photos take to their subject...

as far as automation goes, most processes are already out of my hands anyways, you can never be totally original when you're accepting a medium somebody else invented, unless you invent your own medium, and even then you're accepting the way other people throughout history have developed image composition, just look at photos today in general compared to photos from 30 years ago, totally different styles...

point being, i think it's rediculous to blast people for enjoying a photo, i also think it's rediculous to blast photographers because of lack of skill and praise those in turn who do have skill, as inferior/superior in any way, i know i can consistently turn out good results, i also know that i can consistently turn out bad results... who cares? besides i never know what other people like of mine... i can say "this is a good photo!" but then everybody i know picks an accidental photo as the good photo... as a film photographer i can say that i'm more artistic, because i have a 70% success rate when i go out to take photos - and then i only take say 24 or less photos of which 20 are good, whereas some guy with a digital camera goes out and takes 500 photos and picks 20 good photos, and because of that i'm better because if i took 500 photos i'd end up with 400 good photos... i think not! in the end who cares?

after all, photography is still not 100% accepted in the art world, painting/sculpture still reign supreme there


----------



## Arch (May 20, 2006)

JamesD said:
			
		

> It's not a matter of the professional being threatened by the amateur.





			
				Luke said:
			
		

> if a crap photographer can be good cos of digital, imagine how good a talented photographer will be, i don't think this will brng any sort of revolution.



In the world of 'art' with 'artists' ..... you both may have a point. But in the world of the professional commercial photographer, it is very much a matter of the pro being threatened by the amateur and the digital revolution is already effecting the pro.

Most of the photo's i get sent on disk nowadays from businesses to incorporate into design work are taken by amateurs, where previously i would of only been sent professional or stock photography...... 

Also how about all these people that are being asked to do weddings with no prior experience...... i was going to do one in sept, but i'v pulled out..... if i didn't get the shots the bride wanted i'd feel bad..... so although the money was good i recomended a professional, but i know of many people who chose to use thier friend who has a DSLR.

Point being if we were all still shooting film, there would certainly be less options available for businesses and brides, using a film camera would be too nerve racking for a novice..... thus creating more work for the professional.

I feel bad for them..... i know a few pro's (in england) whos income has dropped in recent years and often say how theres not enough work around...... the same thing has happened in graphic design.... which is why a career change may be in order for me soon. It may have less impact on the big spenders and larger cities, but for us smaller cities and towns the career of a pro could be considered threatend...... and what will happen in the future when digital cameras get better and better and cheeper by the year.

Food for thought thats all....... but im still with rob on the dolphin picture.... told you you've opened a can of worms rob


----------



## JamesD (May 20, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> In the world of 'art' with 'artists' ..... you both may have a point. But in the world of the professional commercial photographer, it is very much a matter of the pro being threatened by the amateur and the digital revolution is already effecting the pro.



You do indeed have a point here.  I hadn't considered the business side, and for a couple of reasons, the main one being that I've got no knowledge of it whatsoever.  Business is a fickle thing, anyway, in my opinion; and the better work does not always get picked.  Deadlines, format, style, and a host of subjective ideas (being interpreted by the guy who's writing the checks) determine whose name is on the check.

And right on about weddings.  Someone told me day before yesterday that a friend of his was looking for a wedding photographer.  Before he even finished the sentence, I was shaking my head and saying "no."  I know I don't have the skills, and I'd hate to disappoint the interested parties and possibly get _my_ friend in hot water with _his_friends.  I just hope they didn't hire that portrait-studio guy down town--but that's another story.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 20, 2006)

Ah the business end of photography.... I could tell you horror stories but let me sum up my opnion of photo customers with this one statement.  Olin mills was once the largest grossing photo business in the world... it paid its photographers at that time (not long ago) 6bucks an hour.  I know because they were forever calling me looking for a job.  The wanted to be trainees because they had not learned a thing from Olin Mills... So why did people buy from them... THEY KNEW HOW TO MARKET...


----------



## Torus34 (May 20, 2006)

Luke:  Thanks for catching my error in translating from the Portuguese.


----------



## Torus34 (May 20, 2006)

Luke: To add to your already vast store of knowledge -- 'Browning' and 'Shakespeare' are usually capitalized.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 20, 2006)

And one more thing about Browning and Shakespere, they are both dead and probably dont care if you misquote or misspell their name lol....


----------



## Torus34 (May 20, 2006)

Man, I'm so laid back that I don't even care if you even misspell mine!


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 20, 2006)

and I did...


----------



## Luke (May 20, 2006)

JamesD said:
			
		

> Puerility aside, the point remains, and it's this:  If you take a thousand shots, with at least marginal control of exposure and post-processing (particularly with the powerful tools we use, and which any novice can use, though perhaps not as well), then you're bound to eventually wind up with at least one image that's halfway decent, and perhaps even pretty good.
> 
> The point is, the process is, at least to some degree, accidental.
> 
> ...


exactly my point, only with more words.  right on.  once again excuse my puerility(is that the right spelling)


			
				Torus said:
			
		

> Luke: To add to your already vast store of knowledge -- 'Browning' and 'Shakespeare' are usually capitalized.[/QOUTE]
> Yeah, I know I was being arrogant, but I really couldn't resist, you just got unlucky that Browning, is one of my favourite poets.  No hard feelings eh...
> ANYWAY:
> 
> ...


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 20, 2006)

I was in photography with a wedding and portrait service when 35mm films improved enough to shoot weddings.  Most pros said the same things then but,,, it was mostly the guys who had more in their hands, than in their heads.  Uncle George is shooting for sally, who cant afford you anyway.  He isnt replacing you, he is replacing no pics at all.

Sorry guys there will always be guys who do walmart pricing, and give walmart service, to walmart type customers.  It's just a fact of life everybody cant pay thousands of dollars for pics.  Ones they look at for a couple of months then store away for most of their lives.


----------



## Luke (May 21, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> I was in photography with a wedding and portrait service when 35mm films improved enough to shoot weddings. Most pros said the same things then but,,, it was mostly the guys who had more in their hands, than in their heads. Uncle George is shooting for sally, who cant afford you anyway. He isnt replacing you, he is replacing no pics at all.
> 
> Sorry guys there will always be guys who do walmart pricing, and give walmart service, to walmart type customers. It's just a fact of life everybody cant pay thousands of dollars for pics. Ones they look at for a couple of months then store away for most of their lives.


that sounds promising, since i have no experience with wedding photog im going on what i hear here, i think the truth probly lies somewhere near mystery scribe, it doesn't seem logical that an advance in photographic technology will greatly effect pros, the ones with skills (or skillz).


----------



## Torus34 (May 21, 2006)

Luke: Not only no hard feelings, but you stand very tall in my sight. I was so busy trying to get my point across that I didn't even think about who the original poet was! And I knew better! Your correction was fully warranted, if a tad high spirited! I need a major dose of humility now and then.

And while I'm at it, don't worry about your gear. I use manual 35mm and 6x6cm rigs and shoot B&W. Most of my best prints were made with standard lenses and cameras that today's digital wonk would dismiss out of hand. Remember that the work of the great photographers was often done with almost prehistoric equipment. Adams did some of his better work with a $5 lens.


Best regards!


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 21, 2006)

Weston's lenses in Mexico were so poor, that he had to make f90 and smaller apertures just to make them sharp.  Only a complete idiot, a poor (as in no money) photographer, or someone trying to replicate one of the former would bother with an eight hour exposure today.  Sadly, I fall into the latter.

One of the many interesting stories from the day books of Weston is:  Weston would set up one of his famous pepper shots.  Lock the camera down for a mulitple hour shot, and hope that no truck would pass by on the street outside his house.  My little studio/lab is built on a concrete slab but I have been known to bump the tripod.  Imagine the frustration of it after two hours to slightly tap the tripod.  You know it is half way through the exposure, so do you chuck it or finish the 4hours and hope it slipped back to it's original possition.  LOL Chuck it.


----------



## Luke (May 21, 2006)

Torus34 said:
			
		

> Luke: Not only no hard feelings, but you stand very tall in my sight. I was so busy trying to get my point across that I didn't even think about who the original poet was! And I knew better! Your correction was fully warranted, if a tad high spirited! I need a major dose of humility now and then.
> 
> And while I'm at it, don't worry about your gear. I use manual 35mm and 6x6cm rigs and shoot B&W. Most of my best prints were made with standard lenses and cameras that today's digital wonk would dismiss out of hand. Remember that the work of the great photographers was often done with almost prehistoric equipment. Adams did some of his better work with a $5 lens.
> 
> ...



.  yeah i love using teh equipment i use, well, i love prime lenses anyway, theyre awesome.  speaking of Ansel, we're all talking about how art isn't art unless it has meaning (well there are a lot of comments about it early in the thread) but sure some od Adams' work is purely aesthetic.  his landscapes are still art, but there meaning beyond conveying the beauty of the scene is questionable.

ooh yeah and mystery scribe:  if you stop it at two hours (4 hr exposure) itll only be 1 stop under exposeed, no problems there.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 21, 2006)

This may be a case of our perception of the same facts being different. I know nothing of commercial photography, other than the very very small amount of business customers who called on me to do one time pictures. Now for those few shots I am sure some take their real estate agent outside to shoot him with a digi... And there is some validity to the fact that when there were, none to very poor, digital they had to come to someone like me. But my son in law shoots lots of images for web pages still and there were none of them around when I was running it.

I am retired now and my son in law has the business and gone digital. He is high end nikon based and has had to charge more. The customers I historically serviced are probably having uncle jeff. 

That was the comment I made earlier. They can't afford my Son in Law because his prices are so high. If you dont have a wallmart type pro, for the walmart type customer, they will most likely get uncle jeff.

But the choice still isn't you or jeff. It is noone or jeff. People are not going to come up with an extra thousand dollars just because you bought an expensive outfit. If they don't have it, they dont have it. So the choice in weddings is the pro, they cant afford, uncle jeff, or nothing. Guess where the customer who was willing to pay a walmart price has gone. 

My son in law isnt losing business at all and certainly not because these people would rather have uncle jeff do it. The reason I say that is: before uncle jeff had his canon digi, he had a canon 35mm and they hired guys like me anyway. I'm sorry I don't have a lot of sympathy for wedding photographers who price themselves out of the low end market then complain about the numbers being down. The numbers have always been at the low end of the scale.  More people spend less money but there are more of them.  When they can't afford you, then you don't have many customers no matter who is shooting for them.

There are a lot more photographers chasing the fewer wedding customers willing to pay them. There are enough horror stories around that the brides all know they are taking a terrible chance with uncle jeff.

I believe they would rather have a pro but they have called around and they know what the rates are. If they can't find someone who will shoot it for a price they can afford, they will get uncle jeff, they always have.

I spoke to a photographer who does nothing but commercial real estate, (He also closed down his studio) and he said his new problem was convincing his clients that his digital shot was worth using, and their's wasn't. I don't know but I expect alot of write off (The quick one shot that they bill the irs tripple for) photography is going digital. I hadn't thought of that but I suppose so.

In weddings I would venture to say it is more the increase in price than the increase in quality digital cameras in the hands of relative and friends. Now I don't consider the price a photographer charges, or what he does on monday morning, a bench mark for being called a qualified photographer. I personally ran a full time studio, but I never looked down or the cop or fireman who worked a real job. I did look down on the people who did shoddy work just because they were reasonably priced.  If a bride can see lots of samples she feels better than jeff telling her sure he knows what he is doing.  Trust me he wasn't her first choice.

If you look in the yellow pages this year compared to last year it gets sorted out eventually. They come and they go..It has always been like that this is not a new phenomenon.

This is just my opinion based on my own small studio in a rural southern area so maybe im full of it... Most people tend to think so...

By the way people who will pay for quality are still out there' Every photographer isnt right for everyone of them, so yes it gets spread around.

yeah i know about the exposure thing but one stop on a paper negative is a lot. Take a look at the paper negative thread on the alt forum. James and I are working with them. One stop on film is easy to compensate for and I expect even digital one stop on a paper negative can make you crazy.


----------



## melcooney (May 21, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> I am glad that I lived long enough to see a time that every man with a 2000 bucks to spend on a camera can be an artist. It is nice to know that with your nikon they pack the soul of an artist... just add water...


 
I have to disagree here.

IMO just because you have a great camera does not mean that the pictures you take will be fabulous. For me, taking pictures as well as drawing or painting pictures takes a degree of raw talent that can be refined and sharpened if exercised ---like a muscle. Granted, with a gazillion shots generally there are some exceptional pictures. But is it the camera or the photographer's eye? 

I think photography is a medium that the average person who craves to express themself can do that. And to me, that is art. It is an expression of the artist. Granted, the dolphin is cheesy...when these motivational posters first hit the market my initial reaction was that they were for motivation, not art. I have found nothing simple about learning how to manipulate my pictures in Photoshop...my hat is off to anyone who thinks it is easy...

For me, I try to look at things...ordinary things...from a different POV. Does that make me an artist? I'd like to think so. I have had minimal training in photography and other mediums. The rest is up to me. My intentions are to further my training, as life is one big adventure in learning...This is just one stage of my training...


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 21, 2006)

I think this is a case of mistaken identity that was sarcasm..... Sorry without the previous posts it comes off wrong.  Note the last sentance


----------



## Luke (May 22, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> yeah i know about the exposure thing but one stop on a paper negative is a lot. Take a look at the paper negative thread on the alt forum. James and I are working with them. One stop on film is easy to compensate for and I expect even digital one stop on a paper negative can make you crazy.


never used paper negative, what is it? what's it for?


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 22, 2006)

Instead of film you use a piece of enlarging paper as your negative material. There is a paper negative thread in the alternative technique thread here. There is a lot of information there and more being developed. In my case it's like a pin hole camera with a lens. Very slow times since the paper is iso 5 there abouts and acts differently from film. It is less tolerant, has less detail, that sort of thing.

I am a 100% retro/primative photographer except for things like ebay. Paper shoots a primative image at least that is where I am trying to head with it. Where as film shoots a retro image with the equipment I use. Let me leave you a quick example here.






Isn't the best example but it will give you an idea the difference between retro and primative... primative is my term for the time when it was early emulsion on glass or some other similar thing. Paper is as close as I can come without coating negs and I'm not that into the process. Im into the image.


----------



## Luke (May 23, 2006)

cool i get ya, one question though, since it's enlarger paper, you're original print or 'paper neg' will be negative right, then you have to invert it somehow, like in the computer or something?


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 23, 2006)

I use the computer but for years photographer who did this used the enlarger and projected light through the back of the paper.  Either in a contact print or by useing it in the negative carrier.  Mostly it was large format negs.  These days you can even peel the rc emulsion before you project through it, but im not sure of the advantge since you dont get clear areas for black spaces.  It still looks like the negative picture not a film negative.

Paper is very hard to get a handle on exposure wise.  I still working but I have always had the feeling that the "quality" of the light effects the iso of the paper negative.  I'm thinging hot light and cool light.  I can replicate the pictures above in my studio with any wattage of ordinary household bulbs.  In the ambiant light of the dark studio I can expose forever and it never gets quite  enough light.

From my re enact shoot Im getting even more convinced that daylight produces a high iso for paper.  Once I get all the film processed frm the reinact I am going to start experimenting.


----------



## JamesD (Jun 9, 2006)

Charlie, I got to thinking and reading about this.... and this is what I came up with.

VC papers have two emulsions, one that's sensitive to green, and one that's sensitive to blue.  I believe that I read the blue one is faster than the green, but in any case, it's the blue emulsion that creates high-contrast images, and the green that does the low contrast.

Getting to the point:  neither emulsion is red-sensitive, meaning that "cold lights" will produce an image, but "warm" lights will be much slower, and if they're "too warm," ie too red, no image will be formed at all (at least not in any reasonable amount of time).

Where I run into trouble is that if you're shooting in a studio with window light, then it will be mostly cool light, to which the paper should be sensitive.  Are you shooting near sunset?  You know, one of those brilliant orange and red sunsets?


----------

