# I want to be a photographer  or maybe an artist. - small rant



## The_Traveler (Mar 2, 2014)

Every group of photographers I know seems divided by their intent into two groups, whether they own up to it or not. One group is those who aspire to be craftsmen (or craftswomen) They want to control their equipment and refine their technique so they can capture anything in front of their lens in the way they want to capture it. 

It is rare that someone who works in a craft-based community, like photography, will declare themselves to be an 'artist', perhaps because that seems to be putting themselves above their fellows, somehow pretentious or presumptuous or thinking what their friends are doing isn't good enough. Interestingly, many people will actually try to denigrate the role of 'artist', perhaps in some sort of compensatory maneuver to explain their own choice of 'career'.  

There is also the implication is that artists don't conform to the high standards of execution of the craft that photographers as craftsman do. Yet it is a common trope that, when a craftsman exceeds the usual standards, producing work that is new and creative, he or she is designated by his/her admirers as an 'artist' _eg_ my hairdresser is an artist.  

Generalizing, as I see it, a craftsman has, or intends to have, the skill to faithfully reproduce someone else's artistic vision and there is no connotation of any particular individual creativity beyond a certain polishing of techniques.   An artist is really be defined by the intent to produce something that reflects his or her artistic sensibilities, pushing out from standard ways to find something new  and there is no connotation of skill. 

One can be a poor craftsman with no skills and no talent to attain or polish them. 
One can be a poor artist, while still having great skills, but having no or poor creative instincts. .  A mediocre or bad  artist, who knows that he is exactly that, is really someone to be pitied.

Photography is rather unique amongst the creative arts in that effort is supported by a huge and intricate technology. 

Smart cameras can, as long as the operator doesn't interfere too much, produce decent results under common conditions; after all the creating engineers know how to plan for common conditions. Thus the ordinary run of standard product has been raised to a level such that the line between ordinary, routine crap produced by a smart camera and actual good stuff produced by a skilled photographer is not easily discernible by an unknowing viewer. 

So, while most artistic endeavors clearly require some skill development in order to exercise one's creative spark, photography seems to be more friendly and encouraging. So, it is easy to have an idea that someone can use a camera and be  'creative'; self-proclamation is easy to say and rarely denied to anyone's face.

I come across a good number of these 'artists.' 
 They, who don't know any better, can take a camera, make simple settings, press the shutter button and get a reasonably sharp, reasonably well-exposed result.  Again, not knowing any better, they can assume they have the vehicle to transport their creative ideas to fruition and declare themselves an artist.  

But, when the conditions or scene get out of that narrow bounds that the engineers have planned for, their pictures fall apart. With little experience or knowledge they can't recognize the source of defects in the image and sometimes are even blind to their presence. Typically, in the reverse of the 'craftsman' snobbery, they also seem to believe that the standards of the craft, the skills, the experience are unneeded in comparison to the strength of their artistic vision. 

And perhaps that gets to the crux of it; their behavior, the obviousness of craft or the denial of it, is as damn insulting to me as someone here, having just bought a camera, out looking for work as a wedding photographer.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 2, 2014)

A craftsman is occasionally not an artist, if and when they are just following procedures, like "here's a set of plans to make this chair, now go buy the wood and do it." The person who does is clearly a craftsman, but is not making any artistic decisions.


Anybody who is making design decisions, however, is an artist IMO. Including the dude who came up with the original plans for that chair. And every photographer pretty much, outside of the most banal, procedural technical work like photographing manuscripts. Or perhaps school photos always on the exact same bleachers with the same lights etc.


I would avoid using the term on myself very often for the simple and not terribly interesting reason you pointed out in the OP: it comes across as arrogant. But I still think I am one if you ask. I also think you are and pretty much all the rest of us.


As you say, some are bad artists, some are good. But I don't see it as very controversial that we are all artists.


----------



## 71M (Mar 2, 2014)

Very interesting; not sure I agree with all you wrote, going to chew on it for a minute.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 2, 2014)

Lew,

I read through the mini-rant here and I guess my thought is this, anyone that thinks they can pick up a camera and shoot a complex event like a wedding and do so competently is obviously ignorant.

But I would submit that being insulted by that and getting angry with them for it serves no more purpose than being angry at a tornado for destroying your house.

If you get angry with ignorant people you'll wind up being angry all the time, because face it, the whole world is just chock full of them.

So if truly is about the art then let it be about the art.  Just my two cents worth of course.

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk


----------



## ratssass (Mar 2, 2014)

_*NEWSFLASH............*_Lew is angry all the time,and that ok.That's one of the many things you can learn from a man like Lew.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 2, 2014)

ratssass said:


> _*NEWSFLASH............*_Lew is angry all the time,and that ok.



Not true.

Between 3:00 AM and 7:26 AM,  I am totally cooled out.


----------



## runnah (Mar 2, 2014)

I guess I am missing the gist of the argument.

  Is Lew angry because people don't identify themselves as artists or because craftsmen call themselves artists?

Reading comprehension is not my strongest suit.


----------



## 71M (Mar 2, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> And perhaps that gets to the crux of it; their behavior, the obviousness of craft or the denial of it, is as damn insulting to me as someone here, having just bought a camera, out looking for work as a wedding photographer.



Many moons ago, Jimi Hendrix was on playing on the radio; a conservative,  a self-appointed, _custodian of good taste type guy_ said: "gee, this is awful, this isn't music! this guy can't play!", (he actually said that, "can't play!").  It went against everything he considered the 'craft' of making conventional sweet, melodic pop. The piece of music was Jimi's rendition of Star-Spangled Banner. 

I recognize the analogy can be diminished with more insight into how Hendrix knew how to play 'normally' - if he ever wanted to - or similarly how an artist like Picasso could 'draw normally' - if he wanted to, but I see it as comparable that if an artist' wants to use blur, light-leaks, rule breaking attitude to photography etc, that's kind of like Jimi's Star Spangled Banner in a different form. (The non-conformist approach to sound creation with an electric guitar that broke all known rules.) 

Punk is maybe a better example: as we know, Punk was an attitude _and_ a lack of aptitude musically to start with - what emerged as a DIY counter-movement to very 'craft conscious' music like the Prog Rock and soppy Pop of the early 70s, became a signature sound by the 80s. The seeds of Punk eventually created good craft and good art too. So I 'd say that photographers as artists, as craftsmen, as _dilettante_ either or, is useful and necessary to evolve all of it. It's all good.


----------



## AlanO (Mar 2, 2014)

runnah said:


> I guess I am missing the gist of the argument.
> 
> Is Lew angry because people don't identify themselves as artists or because craftsmen call themselves artists?
> 
> Reading comprehension is not my strongest suit.



I think Lew's point is the best photographers are both artists and craftsmen. Both qualities are equally as important in creating extraordinay works. I think the rant is frustration over photographers not recognizing this fact.


----------



## 71M (Mar 2, 2014)

AlanO said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I am missing the gist of the argument.
> ...



It does seem, (to me), to be more in one direction than in the other. It may be just coincidental that none of the photographers I really admire, have spoken or written about the importance of craft or pronounce themselves artists, that I've seen. They just make pictures that communicate.


----------



## runnah (Mar 2, 2014)

AlanO said:


> I think Lew's point is the best photographers are both artists and craftsmen. Both qualities are equally as important in creating extraordinay works. I think the rant is frustration over photograpers not recognizing this fact.



Oh I figured that was an obvious fact. Carry on.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 2, 2014)

What really set this off is my coming across a number of people proclaiming themselves as artists and being accepted as such in the local 'arts' community and yet they have no skills and are seemingly unaware that skills are required. The local galleries show these people and are seemingly themselves unaware of how truly awful they are.

I was in a show with two other photographers and they were terrible - it was a bad experience.
I have a show later this year and I'm at the point where I am going to investigate the other photographer and decide whether or not to withdraw.


----------



## 71M (Mar 2, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> What really set this off is my coming across a number of people proclaiming themselves as artists and being accepted as such in the local 'arts' community and yet they have no skills and are seemingly unaware that skills are required. The local galleries show these people and are seemingly themselves unaware of how truly awful they are.
> 
> I was in a show with two other photographers and they were terrible - it was a bad experience.
> I have a show later this year and I'm at the point where I am going to investigate the other photographer and decide whether or not to withdraw.



What are these artists doing? Taking photos?


----------



## 71M (Mar 2, 2014)

Is the show curated in a way that doesn't differentiate between your objectives and theirs?


----------



## kathyt (Mar 2, 2014)

This **** is way to deep for me, but I can say from my own experience, that I know how to operate my camera, I know what my clients want/expect from me, and I can generally give them that, because I have put in the time and effort to learn how to do so. I do not consider myself an artist. I am very practical. I am a nurse. We are generally very black and white. They either have a pulse or don't. Everybody on this forum is going to have their own logic behind why and how they do things. I really don't care how Suzie-Shoots-Alot does things, because she doesn't care for my clients. I am responsible for my actions, goals, and ultimately my fate in this industry. I get out of it what I put into it. Same goes for everyone else.


----------



## AlanO (Mar 2, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> A mediocre or bad artist, who knows that he is exactly that, is really someone to be pitied.



I'm not sure most self-proclaimed artists think they are bad, maybe some do.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 2, 2014)

Im kinda wondering, Lew, if youre having a little bit of fun with us. 

By my understanding and usage, craftsmen/women, are those who have an intimate knowledge of their tools and craft, and the skills to use that knowledge to create objects that the non-crafty can only admire and envy.  To my mind, to be a true craftsman practically requires one to be an artist.

Perhaps the word youre thinking of is technician  someone who has an excellent technical grasp of the tools and processes, but uses these in a purely utilitarian way.  A superb technician transforms a set of plans into an exact real-world creation, faithful in the smallest detail to the concept he or she is implementing.  Most of the time, you do NOT want the technician to add their own contribution as this will usually screw up the thing being created.
I make these comments with the background of being surrounded by examples of crafty people who are artists, and technicians who are not.

As for the definition of artists, if you wish to debate that, you will need to do it in the proper forum, such as an intimate pub with a good selection of beer and fortified spirits.

There really are two groups of artists  those that are self-declared, and those who have the descriptor bestowed on them by others.  The first are describing an aspiration, as they usually dont deserve it.  The latter, on the other hand, have shown through their work that they have the mastery of the medium sufficient to attract the admiration of their peers.  Perhaps this is the reason why so many people avoid using the artist description, as they dont want to join the ranks of the self-declared (but self-deluded) artists.

I would also mildly disagree with your characterization of bad artists who know they are bad  they are already much ahead of those who are bad but have no clue how bad they really are, for they already have an idea where they fit on the scale of artistry, and they know the direction of the improvement arrow.

@ Kathy:  youre being modest.  While it is true that you probably dont want to be an artist at nursing (I would fear nurses who are artistic with their injections, or dosages, or application of defillibrators), I cant say the same of your photography.  In the latter field, you create the images of people that probably are better than what they look like in real life.  It is in the art of framing, posing, lighting, staging, and post-processing, that you create a better version of reality than can be captured by other people at the same event wielding point-and-shoot cameras.  Actually, I have two nurses in my extended family, and see that even here there is room for the artistic  in the form of empathy, caring, and supporting ways that calm the patient and ease their discomfort.


----------



## RawRusty (Mar 2, 2014)

I have many in my family that are nurses. Indeed my oldest daughter is a RN. IMO Kathy, you are all such a blessing to the sick. As far as photography, I feel your statement represents my feelings about it also. I am just a beginner and my efforts are totally unworthy for posting in this forum. But I am reading, researching, getting ideas and trying them out to gain as much perspective and knowledge as my talent will take me. I am learning a lot from all you people's posts. I shall quietly keep reading and learning. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge.  RR.


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 2, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> What really set this off is my coming across a number of people proclaiming themselves as artists and being accepted as such in the local 'arts' community and yet they have no skills and are seemingly unaware that skills are required. The local galleries show these people and are seemingly themselves unaware of how truly awful they are.



If you had to be good to be an artist, then "bad artist" would be an oxymoron. 

I'm reminded of tech support calls where people, rather then telling me what *their* problem is, tell me what they think the technical problem, or worse, solution is. Wastes a lot of time. I think perhaps you are too busy focusing on use of terms like "artist" or "technician" or whatever when your real *problem* lies elsewhere. It lies with whatever negative experience you had at the show that you attribute (perhaps correctly) to someone unskilled showing with you.


----------



## 71M (Mar 2, 2014)

pgriz said:


> There really are two groups of artists &#8211; those that are self-declared, and those who have the descriptor bestowed on them by others.  The first are describing an aspiration, as they usually don&#8217;t deserve it.  The latter, on the other hand, have shown through their work that they have the mastery of the medium sufficient to attract the admiration of their peers.  Perhaps this is the reason why so many people avoid using the &#8220;artist&#8221; description, as they don&#8217;t want to join the ranks of the self-declared (but self-deluded) &#8220;artists&#8221;.
> 
> I would also mildly disagree with your characterization of bad artists who know they are bad &#8211; they are already much ahead of those who are bad but have no clue how bad they really are, for they already have an idea where they fit on the scale of artistry, and they know the direction of the improvement arrow.



imo, many good artists were and are self-declared; a great deal of Modern Art's relentless progress over the last hundred years has been due to such people. Many great artists certainly didn't enjoy the admiration of their peers, e.g Salon des Refusés, Degenerate Art.  (The Turner Prize even.)

No-one fully engaged in the plastic arts that I know, ducks the appellation, although they may prefer something more specific like painter, sculptor and so on; why would they?


----------



## D-B-J (Mar 2, 2014)

But there will always be people with limited or no skill who are touted as "great" and "awesome" in certain aspects or at specific things... I have friends who are considered (and they themselves consider their selves to be) "smart" and "great students," while in reality they are neither.  I've noticed this phenomenon that, as long as you present yourself with confidence and "apparent" knowledge and prowess, many others will follow you and believe in you blindly.  I guess all you can do is try to not let it bother you, and hope that, when compared to your work and ACTUAL knowledge, their "ruse" will fall apart.  

Best,
Jake


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 2, 2014)

This is quite an interesting post, and a lot of stuff to really think about. Makes for a great start to an introspective.

As a photographer, I'm not an artist. I take pictures of things so I represent them faithfully to the public I'm selling to. I don't feel like the way I do it is really artistic, and that the camera's more of a tool than anything else in these circumstances.

As an artist, I know that I don't have the ability to get what I see onto that sensor and into that memory card quite yet. I try, and I'm getting far better, but I'm not sure if I need more specialized equipment or just more skills (well, more skills is a definite) and more education to achieve my goals with more regularity. My gut says... go for the education and skills first, then get the equipment.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 3, 2014)

[h=2]crafts·man[/h]/&#712;kræfts
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





m&#601;n, &#712;kr&#593;fts-/ Show Spelled [krafts-muh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







n, krahfts-] Show IPA noun, plural crafts·men. 1. a person who practices or is highly skilled in a craft; artisan. 

2. an artist. 



*Origin: *
1325&#8211;75; Middle English craftes man  man of skill, earlier craftman;  compare Old English cræftiga  craftsman, workman (derivative of cræftig crafty


----------



## sashbar (Mar 3, 2014)

pgriz said:


> By my understanding and usage, craftsmen/women, are those who have an intimate knowledge of their tools and craft, and the skills to use that knowledge to create objects that the non-crafty can only admire and envy.  To my mind, to be a true craftsman practically requires one to be an artist.



Of course we can admire the craft or a craftsman, because we admire skill. But it does not mean he/she is nesessary "an artist" as understand the word. I would say for every 10 thousand true craftmen of highest caliber in photography probably one or two can call themselves an artist. Some can pretent, of course, but that's their problem. To me they are just great photographers, not artists. 

I have a concept of an "added value" in photography.  You may call it "artistic value" if you wish. Unlike fine art you do not start here with empty canvas, you push the button and you already have something, some picture. This is what makes photorgraphic art so democratic and so deceptive. You can go and grab a perfect professional exposure of a fantastic sunset. It will be outrageously beautiful. But there may be no artistic value in that photograph whatsoever.  It will be just a nice picture, a wallpaper. That is what a great craftsman is able to produce - a very, very nice wallpaper. Or a very nice picture that we would love to hang on the wall. 

There is a huge difference between a nice picture and an object of art. It is too complicated for a forum post, but to put it short and simple, a nice picture beautifully presents a moment. An art trascendes the moment and shows us something bigger and more important. That is where my "added value" is. So if you aspire to be an artist you have to answer a simple question: "What do I want to tell the people? What am I able to tell? What do I know, what do I feel that others do not?". And if you have the answer, you can be an artist. You chose the medium, be it a camera, a canvas or a piece of rock, this is a secondary question. Sadly most artists-wannabes try to go the other way round. So for most photographers calling themselves "an artist" is rather pretentious. I have seen some artists in photography, but very, very few.


----------



## sashbar (Mar 3, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> This is quite an interesting post, and a lot of stuff to really think about. Makes for a great start to an introspective.
> 
> As a photographer, I'm not an artist. I take pictures of things so I represent them faithfully to the public I'm selling to. I don't feel like the way I do it is really artistic, and that the camera's more of a tool than anything else in these circumstances.
> 
> As an artist, I know that I don't have the ability to get what I see onto that sensor and into that memory card quite yet. I try, and I'm getting far better, but I'm not sure if I need more specialized equipment or just more skills (well, more skills is a definite) and more education to achieve my goals with more regularity. My gut says... go for the education and skills first, then get the equipment.



I think this is a very sensible point of view of a true professional.


----------



## sashbar (Mar 3, 2014)

bribrius said:


> *crafts·man*
> 
> /&#712;kræfts
> 
> ...




Well I can tell my 9 y.o. daughter who can draw animals very beautifully "You are a true artist". But it would not mean what I really think the Artist is.


----------



## jenko (Mar 3, 2014)

As far as craftsmanship and art go, the artist need only know enough to produce their vision for a piece to be successful. 

Ironically, it is typically the vision/idea that is lacking, and not the craftsmanship. There are plenty of well-crafted images that say very little about their subjects. If given a choice, I would prefer to see an image that lacks in craftsmanship but explodes in vision/idea over one that is perfectly crafted, and utterly meaningless.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 3, 2014)

Nothing makes me cringe  like the phrase "I'm an artist". I acknowledge that photography is an art form. I acknowledge that it allows someone to be creative. 

"Artist" for me simply isn't descriptive enough. "Photographer", "sculptor", "painter", etc... Those work for me...


----------



## pgriz (Mar 3, 2014)

It may be an interesting debate as to whether (the majority of) photographers can be considered craftsmen.  For a typical craftsman (in wood, metal, clay, stone or paper), each item of creation takes days, weeks and even months of work, and uses a variety of skills in the production of the item.  Along the way, many choices are made - for instance, a furniture maker may select the appropriate type and cut of wood, decide on the best method of joining the wood, deciding on the best stain or finish to highlight the wood's properties, and so on.  In photographic terms, the investment of effort required to create an image is rarely comparable, unless one is guided by an overall vision that shapes the setting up of the scene, arranging the lighting, providing the appropriate staging, then doing the post-processing and finally transferring to a display medium.  The "value-added" aspect that sashbar refers to, comes, at least in the case of the craftsmen (and craftswomen) I know, in the creation of an esthetically-pleasing, often sensuous piece that almost demands to the touched and handled - to be experienced.  Often it is the combination of senses (touch, smell, sight) that opens up the trap-doors of emotion at a sub-conscious level.

I have seen works by photographers who I would consider to be craftsmen/craftswomen, and their work has almost always consisted of rather large printed pieces, usually of a set, arranged in a suitable way to allow a continuation of vision.  They were made to be experienced (as opposed to just looked at).  And these photographic craftsmen/craftswomen very obviously had an artistic expression that resonated emotionally with the viewers.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 3, 2014)

pgriz said:


> It may be an interesting debate as to whether (the majority of) photographers can be considered craftsmen. For a typical craftsman (in wood, metal, clay, stone or paper), each item of creation takes days, weeks and even months of work, and uses a variety of skills in the production of the item. Along the way, many choices are made - for instance, a furniture maker may select the appropriate type and cut of wood, decide on the best method of joining the wood, deciding on the best stain or finish to highlight the wood's properties, and so on. In photographic terms, the investment of effort required to create an image is rarely comparable, unless one is guided by an overall vision that shapes the setting up of the scene, arranging the lighting, providing the appropriate staging, then doing the post-processing and finally transferring to a display medium. The "value-added" aspect that sashbar refers to, comes, at least in the case of the craftsmen (and craftswomen) I know, in the creation of an esthetically-pleasing, often sensuous piece that almost demands to the touched and handled - to be experienced. Often it is the combination of senses (touch, smell, sight) that opens up the trap-doors of emotion at a sub-conscious level.
> 
> I have seen works by photographers who I would consider to be craftsmen/craftswomen, and their work has almost always consisted of rather large printed pieces, usually of a set, arranged in a suitable way to allow a continuation of vision. They were made to be experienced (as opposed to just looked at). And these photographic craftsmen/craftswomen very obviously had an artistic expression that resonated emotionally with the viewers.


I agree with this. Photography, by and large I wouldn't even consider a craft in fact it is becoming less of one. The further it gets away from doing it yourself (carving with a wood chisel) to technology (running a item through a cnc) the less of a craft it becomes. My grandfather carved the horses for merry go rounds (for example). Comparing that to photography, least the majority of the photography I have seen. I cant even take that seriously. While there are people in it that know enough in it to be considered craftsmen they are few and far between. And most of the artistic vision people discuss is crap.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 3, 2014)

71M said:


> What are these artists doing? Taking photos?





71M said:


> Is the show curated in a way that doesn't differentiate between your objectives and theirs?



What bothers me is that the managers of the galleries seem relatively oblivious to any need for technical execution supporting the art. The work looks good in description and from a distance but, too often, up close the impact is destroyed by terrible execution and lack of skills.

That is a common trope among _faux_ artists, that they are above the mere technical execution. It is a way of excusing their inability and their lack of knowledge. It's a great time saver not to actually have to 'know' anything or be able to 'do' anything with any degree of skill. 

It is the equivalent of those at the other end of the arc who want to make believing oneself to be an 'artist' to be a pretentious pose, that their skills are enough. Their behavior is to say, I am just a plain, honest craftsman, doing beautiful things and not a _poseur_ who needs a title. I'm doing the work and my beautiful work is all that there is or needs to be.'

It is a way of excusing or justifying their own choices by denying there is anything more.



jenko said:


> As far as craftsmanship and art go, the artist need only know enough to produce their vision for a piece to be successful.
> 
> Ironically, it is typically the vision/idea that is lacking, and not the craftsmanship. There are plenty of well-crafted images that say very little about their subjects. If given a choice, I would prefer to see an image that lacks in craftsmanship but explodes in vision/idea over one that is perfectly crafted, and utterly meaningless.



I couldn't agree with this more. It has become my belief that technical execution is irrelevant unless it hurts appreciation of the artist's vision. 

Artists can use photography as their means of expression, the difficulty is that there must be something that the artist wants to say or show. Just recording what one sees, no matter how nicely it is done, how pretty the scene, how difficult the shot, is not art. 

Art is creation, not copying.



minicoop1985 said:


> As a photographer, I'm not an artist. I take pictures of things so I represent them faithfully to the public I'm selling to. I don't feel like the way I do it is really artistic, and that the camera's more of a tool than anything else in these circumstances.
> 
> As an artist, I know that I don't have the ability to get what I see onto that sensor and into that memory card quite yet. I try, and I'm getting far better, but I'm not sure if I need more specialized equipment or just more skills (well, more skills is a definite) and more education to achieve my goals with more regularity. My gut says... go for the education and skills first, then get the equipment.



Eventually you will get to the point where you will be unsatisfied with just copying and you will try to translate your feelings and ideas onto the sensor. Guaranteed not everything will work.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 3, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> What really set this off is my coming across a number of people proclaiming themselves as artists and being accepted as such in the local 'arts' community and yet they have no skills and are seemingly unaware that skills are required. The local galleries show these people and are seemingly themselves unaware of how truly awful they are.
> 
> I was in a show with two other photographers and they were terrible - it was a bad experience.
> I have a show later this year and I'm at the point where I am going to investigate the other photographer and decide whether or not to withdraw.




I can't see why it would matter if they are good or not, are you worried that the public will like theirs more than yours ?


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 3, 2014)

gsgary said:


> I can't see why it would matter if they are good or not, are you worried that the public will like theirs more than yours ?



When truly crappy photography is represented as good by the nominal authorities - galleries- then the public conception of photography as an art suffers.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 3, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I can't see why it would matter if they are good or not, are you worried that the public will like theirs more than yours ?
> ...



Crappy photography in your eyes but maybe not in the art world, 2 of the best photographers that can make something very plain look wonderful are Willian Eggleston and Stephen Shore 25 years ago i thought their work was garbage but when i started to understand it my view changed


----------



## 71M (Mar 3, 2014)

sashbar said:


> [ art trascendes the moment and shows us something bigger and more important.



Roughly put, I agree. 'Bigger', 'important' ..we can refine or substitute terms but yes: Artists deal in ideas, they transcend, explore and feed ideas back into the loop. Do that with a camera, whether by design or chance, and you should regard yourself as an artist, because at that moment you are.

I think maybe Lew's just peeved he's been chucked in with the noobs.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 3, 2014)

Well again I woke up this morning with the dreaded Pinocchio complex, just feeling the overwhelming desire to stick my elongated proboscis in, so here goes.

I think this entire thing is more or less a moot point unless you could begin to "define" or "categorize" things with which you can do neither. Case in point, I've often heard Lew extol the notion that in order to be good the photograph must have an interesting subject or story - and while I wholeheartedly agree, the problem comes in when you start to ask, interesting to whom? Certainly what I find interesting is going to be much different than what other people might find interesting. I find animals fascinating. I also find certain works of technology, such as certain airplanes or certain cars or even certain motorcycles of great interest.   

People on a subway? Eh, not so much really, not for me at least. But just because I don't find that interesting for the most part doesn't mean that someone else feels the same way about the same subject. So really I'm in no position to judge what is or is not "interesting" enough to make it qualify as "art" because all I can really say is how interesting it is to me, not how interesting it is on some objective scale of all things interesting.

Same problem with most anything to do with art - there are no objective scales by which things can be measured. Something that might cause major emotional reactions for many often make me feeling nothing but slightly annoyed because I see them as pandering for an obvious audience. But not everyone will have that same reaction I do - whereas some things that might be of only passing interest and have no emotional reaction from most might get a much deeper emotional reaction from me because it reminds me of some event or something to which that emotion is tied.

The problem here is that the foundation for all of this is subjective.  It&#8217;s a house who&#8217;s foundation is built on sand that is constantly shifting.   One moment selective coloring is the hottest new trend and you just can&#8217;t be considered an artist without it.  Next minute the vast majority of people wouldn&#8217;t be caught dead doing it if their life depended on it.

So honestly you can refine the terms all you wish, but I guess it&#8217;s the devil&#8217;s advocate in me that forces me to point out it really won&#8217;t make a hill of beans difference in the end.


----------



## timor (Mar 3, 2014)

gsgary said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > What really set this off is my coming across a number of people proclaiming themselves as artists and being accepted as such in the local 'arts' community and yet they have no skills and are seemingly unaware that skills are required. The local galleries show these people and are seemingly themselves unaware of how truly awful they are.
> ...


Good answer, Gary.
Yes Lew, you have to decide, why you are so "unhappy" ? World is a very complicated space and will offer you punches from every corner. Logical or not, just, or not. Are you mad at people, who call themselves artists despite lack of deeper knowledge (of the medium or whatever) in your opinion ? Or are you mad at people, who are promoting that people as artists ? Or is this discussion aimed at a definition who is an artist ? Or who has a right to make that call ? Is there any "Higher Authority" in this matter ? 
No, there is nothing of that sort. However many have claim to it. Take some newspapers and go to "art section" and look how artists are made or destroyed by people who claim, that they know better. Do they ? Or they just push an agenda ? Own or the owners of the paper ? 
No Lew. Artist is always self proclaim. Without the full belief in such a proclamation no one can really be an artist. ( Did you ever seen an artist, who would say: "Eh... I am 50% sure, I am an artist" ?  ) If you do not furiously believe you are an artist, you will never be one. Such a proclamation has nothing to do with the technical level achieved by such a person in given medium. It is triggered by complicated network of conscious and subconscious factors of ones psyche. And there is nothing anyone can do about it except for pumping up or destroying such a person. And here come the art critics. Who they are ? That's another big, big question. IMO they are those, who try to standardise the art and by using proper propaganda means get their opinion around and influence everybody. They may promote anything, even what you hold as a crap, as a good. The fact, that you used word "nominal authorities" means, they influenced you already. About how important they are.  Life will verify those "artists" as such eventually, however will not take away from them the money they are paid now. Is that your problem ?
Here excellent example of a person who didn't act like an artist in her life. We, now, proclaimed her to be an artist:
Vivian Maier - Her Discovered Work
That's, how it works.


----------



## lambertpix (Mar 3, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> When truly crappy photography is represented as good by the nominal authorities - galleries- then the public conception of photography as an art suffers.



Isn't that an issue with all forms of art (ie, paintings, sculpture, music)?

In fact, is there any art at all that's considered gallery-worthy that's universally appealing?  I'm beginning to gain an appreciation that although there are lots and lots of rules & principles we can apply to make our work generally well-received, there's still an underlying bias in the people who view our work -- some stuff just "works" for some people and not others.

Consider a work that lots of people think is "nice" vs. one where some people love it and others hate it.  Which is better art?


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 3, 2014)

To be honest, I can't follow some of points people are trying to make, except that people seem to be really happy at the opportunity to try and make them.

I am offended by really bad photography, badly executed, badly finished being passed off as art.
I don't mean work with some potentially higher concept that I'm not getting - I'm perfectly willing to accept 'art' that I don't understand - but pictures of flowers and shrubs and peoples faces that are badly done in every conceivable way, I am happy and confident to dislike them.
I am confident in my ability to look at pictures that are partially OOF, terribly over-saturated and over-sharpened and say those are crap; these don't rise to the level of art because there is nothing to consider about them.  
And I am disappointed in the institutions, the galleries, that are oblivious to the basic ideas of composition and execution and are willing to house this work.


And I don't care if people dislike what I do. 
I am pleased when people actually do like it but it is irrelevant to me when they don't.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 3, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> To be honest, I can't follow some of points people are trying to make, except that people seem to be really happy at the opportunity to try and make them.
> 
> I am offended by really bad photography, badly executed, badly finished being passed off as art.
> I don't mean work with some potentially higher concept that I'm not getting - I'm perfectly willing to accept 'art' that I don't understand - but pictures of flowers and shrubs and peoples faces that are badly done in every conceivable way, I am happy and confident to dislike them.
> ...



I bet you didn't like Andy Warhol and pop art
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...David-Lynch-Photographers-Gallery-review.html


----------



## timor (Mar 3, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> - but pictures of flowers and shrubs and peoples faces that are badly done in every conceivable way,


 That's the age of happy digital shooting. Darkroom had one clear advantage after all, was giving the space and time for the photographer to think, what is worth his effort. People were more serious. Today add for every digi camera promises artistry. People want to believe. [h=1]Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur[/h]


----------



## bribrius (Mar 3, 2014)

But does any of it really matter? Really? you are born, you live, you die. End of story. you wont know the difference and it wouldn't matter if you do.

Is there some concern about saving some artistic purity here? Because that is all b.s. 
History is full of bad eras, bad clothes, bad hair, bad art. Don't make a bit of difference.
in fact art or this craft or any not necessary itself is a luxury. like a renaissance. such luxury's of even contemplating this, right now, is due to a societal peace and security. Humans spent more years trying to survive, war, building and rebuilding, starving, than contemplating art. we contemplate art when WE ARE BORED and life allows us such a luxury. its a luxurious time killer for good peace easy survival times. Then we go through a so upheaval, and the art all ends up being putting aside, or being burned in piles if you are in Nazi Germany, and people move on to more important things like staying alive. The good thing, is if all this is bad art, or bad craftsmanship, if it gets burned in giant piles at least it wont be anything to valuable being desecrated.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 3, 2014)

bribrius said:


> But does any of it really matter? Really? you are born, you live, you die. End of story. you wont know the difference and it wouldn't matter if you do.  Is there some concern about saving some artistic purity here? Because that is all b.s. History is full of bad eras, bad clothes, bad hair, bad art. Don't make a bit of difference. in fact art or this craft or any not necessary itself is a luxury. like a renaissance. such luxury's of even contemplating this, right now, is due to a societal peace and security. Humans spent more years trying to survive, war, building and rebuilding, starving, than contemplating art. we contemplate art when WE ARE BORED and life allows us such a luxury. its a luxurious time killer for good peace easy survival times. Then we go through a so upheaval, and the art all ends up being putting aside, or being burned in piles if you are in Nazi Germany, and people move on to more important things like staying alive. The good thing, is if all this is bad art, or bad craftsmanship, if it gets burned in giant piles at least it wont be anything to valuable being desecrated.



But this is the first time (that I can recall) in history where the absence of art is the art.

It's like a depressing way of artists saying "It's all been done so let's not do anything but make people think we're doing something."


----------



## bribrius (Mar 3, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > But does any of it really matter? Really? you are born, you live, you die. End of story. you wont know the difference and it wouldn't matter if you do. Is there some concern about saving some artistic purity here? Because that is all b.s. History is full of bad eras, bad clothes, bad hair, bad art. Don't make a bit of difference. in fact art or this craft or any not necessary itself is a luxury. like a renaissance. such luxury's of even contemplating this, right now, is due to a societal peace and security. Humans spent more years trying to survive, war, building and rebuilding, starving, than contemplating art. we contemplate art when WE ARE BORED and life allows us such a luxury. its a luxurious time killer for good peace easy survival times. Then we go through a so upheaval, and the art all ends up being putting aside, or being burned in piles if you are in Nazi Germany, and people move on to more important things like staying alive. The good thing, is if all this is bad art, or bad craftsmanship, if it gets burned in giant piles at least it wont be anything to valuable being desecrated.
> ...


it has all been done. The difference is technology, now you see it because of easy communication, that it has all been done. if you were still living in a town with no electricity, kept ignorant, you would just keep carrying on producing whatever art you can to whatever level you can. It also isn't special as it once was. Because we have gone through such a extended period of peace, in which to create and dwell on such things, we have art coming out of our ears. A giant calamity to wipe it all out, a dark ages, to begin again new and refreshed, to start again, is probably what art needs.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 3, 2014)

bribrius said:


> it has all been done. The difference is technology, now you see it because of easy communication, that it has all been done. if you were still living in a town with no electricity, kept ignorant, you would just keep carrying on producing whatever art you can to whatever level you can. It also isn't special as it once was. Because we have gone through such a extended period of peace, in which to create and dwell on such things, we have art coming out of our ears. A giant calamity to wipe it all out, a dark ages, to begin again new and refreshed, to start again, is probably what art needs.



How do we know it has all been done...


----------



## bribrius (Mar 3, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > it has all been done. The difference is technology, now you see it because of easy communication, that it has all been done. if you were still living in a town with no electricity, kept ignorant, you would just keep carrying on producing whatever art you can to whatever level you can. It also isn't special as it once was. Because we have gone through such a extended period of peace, in which to create and dwell on such things, we have art coming out of our ears. A giant calamity to wipe it all out, a dark ages, to begin again new and refreshed, to start again, is probably what art needs.
> ...


my opinion? honestly? even though im far from a artist and would never say I am? is that art comes from the soul, and hurt, and celebration. It is the dark ages and the dark times, that make the art in the light ages. No dark ages, no art. we stay peaceful, status quo, like a writer, loses things to write about. Or the soul or celebration to write from. so we invent crap to make art, because we ran out of celebration and darkness to celebrate the relief from. First few generations, recreate or create. But after a while, it is just more crap, piling on, piling on, piling on. Because the further you get from that initial dark period, and celebration, the further you get from the source of the art.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 3, 2014)

bribrius said:
			
		

> it has all been done. The difference is technology, now you see it because of easy communication, that it has all been done. if you were still living in a town with no electricity, kept ignorant, you would just keep carrying on producing whatever art you can to whatever level you can. It also isn't special as it once was. Because we have gone through such a extended period of peace, in which to create and dwell on such things, we have art coming out of our ears. A giant calamity to wipe it all out, a dark ages, to begin again new and refreshed, to start again, is probably what art needs.



PROOF that "it has all been done". 

500px + Horseshoe Bend - Google Search

The internet and the various aggregator sites make it possible to see the same old junk, shot by myriad shooters. Of the aggregator sites, 500px might be the worst offender in regurgitation of the same old stuff. High technical quality, but not much artistry as noobs Google well-known and not-so-well-known locations and see exactly how to shoot landmarks, where to plant their tripods, and how the most highly-rated photos were composed. Then they go out and shoot the same old crap. Great technicians, and good post-processing skills, but no vision, no imagination, no real vision, no artistry.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 3, 2014)

Derrel said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think most movies fall into five or so basic plot groups and they just reuse the same plots with different actors. Art, assuming it comes from inside. Takes inspiration. status quo doesn't provide inspiration. Status quo makes unfeeling sheep. Media and technology too. How can you come out with a orginal idea when you are constantly exposed to other peoples ideas? Most everything is copied. Even on this site, seeing other people photos, it enters your subconscious and in some way you will recreate or copy that photo. But short of a giant upheaval, technological breakdown, some generation ends up parentless from a natural disaster, dead people, starving, war torn, something. Something so hideous followed by such a relief and celebration of life. I don't know where that inspiration can come from. years ago, they fought, starved, celebrated when they had food, lived closer to nature and death, without exposure to so many other copies of copies. It was probably easier for them to come up with a original idea and art.


----------



## timor (Mar 3, 2014)

bribrius said:


> we contemplate art when WE ARE BORED and life allows us such a luxury. its a luxurious time killer for good peace easy survival times.


 I general I agree with you about the art being an icing on the cake of our lives. . But I would say we need that icing to survive. Even upheavals. Concept of art was established long time ego, some 30 000 years. That means, that people had the need for beautiful objects already then. Physical survival was one thing, but there was already need for survival of the soul. Like here:
BlueisKewl: Russian Soldiers Playing Piano in a Wrecked Living room in Berlin, 1945

The big problem with art in photography is the same like 100 years ago. Now even more acute. As photographic images are made rather mechanically there is a good chance for luck. To paraphrase HBC: anyone can make a brilliant photograph once in every 10000 frames. Even ape can press the trigger just in the right moment once in the life. Does it make it an artist ? I don't think so, but presented with just this one picture I might believe so.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 3, 2014)

gsgary said:


> I bet you didn't like Andy Warhol and pop art
> Andy Warhol, William Burroughs, David Lynch, Photographers' Gallery, review - Telegraph



You'd be wrong to make any jufgements about what I like or dislike except incompetence and if you are trying to make some point about me or my opinions, just say it straight out.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 3, 2014)

timor said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > we contemplate art when WE ARE BORED and life allows us such a luxury. its a luxurious time killer for good peace easy survival times.
> ...


At this point im pretty happy with photography being a record of a place in time. If you see something, want to show other people, take a picture so they can see it too. you see something, want to hang on to that moment, take a picture so you can look or others can look at it later. A good reference. The art side of photography, in my opinion anyway, was a stretch from the beginning and few and far between. And even if someone managed to make art with a photograph, I don't think it ever held the same weight as painting or sculpting or other similar facets. Artsy type things is more common now, mostly from technology we can manipulate images better, but I don't consider image manipulation the same way I would sculpting either. I have seen some photos on here though, which I would consider pretty decent art. But for a chronological record, the copy to show others and record, is closer to what I see photography now.

 And for that the photo doesn't have to be great, anymore than your penmanship does, it just has to show. I think art should be a celebration, or show something. This is where we have a problem. Most images, no matter how great, how well done, people will only give a moments time too. They are too common, lack soul or are shallow, and technology cant replace soul. "wow that is neat" is a lot different than seeing something you might remember the rest of your life. But we are at the "wow that's neat" point. And the person looking at it can tell you didn't do it, a machine did, a program did, so its importance is greatly diminished. Doesn't matter how technically correct or executed it was. I have always like the painter dali. why? Because the first time I saw on of the painting as a kid, that image stuck with me. I was AMAZED. I haven't had that feeling in a long time.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 3, 2014)

I personally find the premise of the thread to be amusingly with out real purpose.  But then I tend to think that with most threads that try to come up with some sort of definition of what is art or whom is an artist.    Remember that Paciasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" was considered at the time horrified and disgusted the art community.  Anyone want to take a swipe at it or Picasso now?

Frankly, craftsman, artist, good photo, bad photo.  It's all subjective and in the long run, does it really matter at the end of the day?  Unless you happen to be the one that is smart enough to buy some horrific, disgusting piece like the "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" only to watch it's value skyrocket despite what the art world thought.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 3, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I personally find the premise of the thread to be amusingly with out real purpose.  But then I tend to think that with most threads that try to come up with some sort of definition of what is art or whom is an artist.    Remember that Paciasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" was considered at the time horrified and disgusted the art community.  Anyone want to take a swipe at it or Picasso now?
> 
> Frankly, craftsman, artist, good photo, bad photo.  It's all subjective and in the long run, does it really matter at the end of the day?  Unless you happen to be the one that is smart enough to buy some horrific, disgusting piece like the "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" only to watch it's value skyrocket despite what the art world thought.



Yet, you are here, giving your opinion.

If you actually read the thread, rather than looking for a way to comment on how silly it was and how much above it you are, you would find that I wasn't trying to define art or to say what it should be, I was expressing my frustration and disgust that people who take truly bad photos technically - and believe me after a bunch of years here, I have plenty of experience in judging when photos are bad technically - pass themselves off as artists and gallery owners play along.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 3, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > I personally find the premise of the thread to be amusingly with out real purpose. But then I tend to think that with most threads that try to come up with some sort of definition of what is art or whom is an artist. Remember that Paciasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" was considered at the time horrified and disgusted the art community. Anyone want to take a swipe at it or Picasso now?
> ...


maybe it's you. And you are too stuck on the technical. Maybe they will be the next Picasso with the art community currently finding fault with technical aspects (thought I highly doubt it).
 Far as passing themselves off, well if they suck and are in the same gallery that just makes your mediocre stuff look better. I can empathize as a spectator however. ive seen some pretty bland and none to great photos in galleries. suppose with subjective art though, you just kind of nod your head and step along....


----------



## table1349 (Mar 3, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > I personally find the premise of the thread to be amusingly with out real purpose.  But then I tend to think that with most threads that try to come up with some sort of definition of what is art or whom is an artist.    Remember that Paciasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" was considered at the time horrified and disgusted the art community.  Anyone want to take a swipe at it or Picasso now?
> ...



Lew......At the end of the day in what way does it all matter?  There are a lot of "techniques" being used these days that I personally find to be bad.  My response to those techniques......I don't use them.  If you like it, great.  If you don't like it, no skin off my nose.  Makes life a whole lot easier to live and a whole lot more stress free.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 3, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...



yeah, geez. live and let live lew. :lmao:


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 3, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> To be honest, I can't follow some of points people are trying to make, except that people seem to be really happy at the opportunity to try and make them.



Ok, so you open this thread basically taking issue with people who post in the forum and are dismissive of learning anything new or being willing to examine things from a different point of view.  Does this then strike you as ironic or is just me?



> I am offended by really bad photography, badly executed, badly finished being passed off as art.
> I don't mean work with some potentially higher concept that I'm not getting - I'm perfectly willing to accept 'art' that I don't understand - but pictures of flowers and shrubs and peoples faces that are badly done in every conceivable way, I am happy and confident to dislike them.
> I am confident in my ability to look at pictures that are partially OOF, terribly over-saturated and over-sharpened and say those are crap; these don't rise to the level of art because there is nothing to consider about them.
> And I am disappointed in the institutions, the galleries, that are oblivious to the basic ideas of composition and execution and are willing to house this work.
> ...



Well most galleries are there to make money, not to protect what is or is not someone else's idea of what does or doesn't rise to the level of art.   I do get where your coming from Lew, you spent a lot of time learning an perfecting your "craft" or "art" or whatever designation you wish to give it, and along comes someone who picks up a DSLR with no experience, no desire to really learn or improve and they think that they can shoot a wedding, or get there stuff in a gallery somewhere.  Sadly enough because of the way the world works they are occasionally afforded such opportunities even though they've done nothing to earn it.

Oh yes, I can certainly understand how frustrating that can be - but much like so many other things in life people often rise to the maximum level of their incompetence.  You see it in most endeavors really, people who talk a really good game but in the end that's all they can produce, a lot of talk.

So I guess my thought process is there just isn't any point in taking it personally.  Just food for thought.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 3, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> When truly crappy photography is represented as good by the nominal authorities - galleries- then the public conception of photography as an art suffers.



Only to those who see the same photography you do, and conclude, like you, that it's crappy...


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 3, 2014)

ARROGANCE : offensive display of superiority or self-importance and overbearing pride. Just sayin'


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 3, 2014)

I know how you feel lew....
I feel the same way about photos with sun flare and desaturation.


----------



## Achaicus (Mar 3, 2014)

I understand the indignity of having mediocre work put along side your (exceptional) stuff. But I am wondering how people that go to see these shows are ever going to realize that there is better work out there if The_Traveler pulls his photos from the show. 

:sarcasm on:
I guess I can be glad I've had the good technicians on here to burst my bubble of feeling like I had accomplished something with my point and pray. :sarcasm off: 

I have shared my work with various individuals and there has always been a positive responce overall, Except on here. Now to be fair some of the responce on here has been requested, but when I asked how to change or improve a shot with the gear I have... silence and I'm astute enough to realize that to some degree the shot could be improved with a much better camera. I can even tell you how I could set it up with fancier equipment to solve the stated issue with one of the shots I shared. So hypothetically I could be one of those mediocre fellow gallery exhibitors since I've had several hints that there would have been possibility of showing prints at a gallery. I say hypothetically because I'm poor and not well connected, a double strike against it ever happening. 

I would say to consider that there is more going on than the technical ability of those other exhibitors. The social system in the US is not as rigid as say a caste system, but there is still some significant divisions between socioeconomic classes that are held in place by patterns of behavior. To jump groups and be accepted there is always adjustments in attitude and behavior. And there is always a bunch that is trying to be upwardly mobile and yet are mostly seen to be putting on airs. I'm not qualified to indicate in this situation whether in either case there is misplaced patronage.

:sarcasm on: Now to return to my cave and leave you guys to continue to discuss high tech stuff over a high tech medium. 

This message sent by smoke signals.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 3, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> ARROGANCE : offensive display of superiority or self-importance and overbearing pride. Just sayin'



Oh sure, well if were going to go all Webster's try Opprobrium.  Lol


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 4, 2014)

It's funny how so many people here are all like "Art can't be defined. You can't say with certainty that a fine art photo is good or not. Gee. Be more open minded!"  

And then we all go into the photo forums and tell people how good or crappy their photos are regardless of whether they asked and call BS when somebody tries to tell us it's all for art.  

Good times. Good times.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2014)

you all have me convinced. im going to take some of the crappiest point and shoot photos I have and see if I can get them into a gallery.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 4, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> It's funny how so many people here are all like "Art can't be defined. You can't say with certainty that a fine art photo is good or not. Gee. Be more open minded!"
> 
> And then we all go into the photo forums and tell people how good or crappy their photos are regardless of whether they asked and call BS when somebody tries to tell us it's all for art.
> 
> Good times. Good times.


Which is why I generally don't give C&C.  "It's usually something like how can I improve these photos?"  Tell me what  you think is wrong or in what way you want to improve them and I might have a suggestion.  People like so many different looks and styles these days that a siimple "How can I improve these" is pretty much usless.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 4, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> I know how you feel lew....
> I feel the same way about photos with sun flare and desaturation.


See different strokes for different folks. I happen to like shooting in the conditions that create a little flare.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 4, 2014)

kathyt said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I know how you feel lew....
> ...



i am an _*extremely *_dull photographer. I have no problem admitting that.  I like shooting formal portraits. I like having my backdrops and lighting. 
that's pretty much all I care about shooting aside from occasionally helping my wife somewhere. 
Some might see that as photographic stagnation, but as long as I can get $200 for 5 images on disk + some print sales.... I am perfectly happy with it. 
I am blissfully lacking any desire to create "art". This is not a lack of appreciation for those that _*do*_ create artistic pieces, I am just glad that I am not burdened with that desire myself.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> kathyt said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


im the total opposite. My problem is if i let my self into photography like i feel i fit in the niche i can do, im going to end up with a very troubled marriage. Shooting nudes with a church going wife doesn't fly well. There is actually one i really want to do right now. Been thinking of it for two weeks. But i know im better off blocking it out of my head and trying to find entertainment in taking photos of buildings, boats, anything else.


----------



## jenko (Mar 4, 2014)

My philosophy anymore is pretty much this: do what you enjoy. If it gives your life meaning or purpose, if it educates or entertains you, is therapeutic, involves you in activism, keeps you from drinking yourself to death, helps you to explore life issues which are difficult to process, prevents boredom or stimulates your mind, than go for it. Let time and the critics sort out what is good art and what is not. We can't really judge the true value of a work made in its own time, anyway. We don't have the psychological distance from culture. There are few "instant classics or masterpieces" in art. Many times what happens is that a piece transcends its genre or its intent over time, as the cultural paradigm shifts, as we gain perspective. Great art "becomes" great more often than being born great. And I don't know that any of us can really control that. 

As far as the notion of needing "pain" to create art, well as the Buddha said, "Life is suffering." We all suffer in our own ways. We all experience loss, grief, tragedy. Today's world is subtly painful. It is like a dull throb you have grown used to, even though if you could give that throb to someone else, the pain might kill them. We all get comfortable in our own pain. We see the pain of the past as more severe because we are still living our own versions of the same suffering. Indulgence, greed, betrayal, war, poverty, disease--none of those things have gone away.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 4, 2014)

bribrius said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > kathyt said:
> ...


Yeah, I don't shoot formals unless they are part of a wedding, I only have a studio for a tax deduction purposes, and the only backdrops I use are the ones you can't buy.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 4, 2014)

kathyt said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



wouldn't be a romantic or sexual type nude. And it sucks, because I REALLY want it. Partly for personal reasons.


----------



## timor (Mar 4, 2014)

Lew, looks like it was a very good idea to start this thread. At the end it will help us to define ourselves better. Especially that we are such a mixed bag of people.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 4, 2014)

I got tired of being an artist, so I picked the camera back up...


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 4, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> It's funny how so many people here are all like "Art can't be defined. You can't say with certainty that a fine art photo is good or not. Gee. Be more open minded!"
> 
> And then we all go into the photo forums and tell people how good or crappy their photos are regardless of whether they asked and call BS when somebody tries to tell us it's all for art.
> 
> Good times. Good times.



Ok, well define what should and shouldn't be considered "Art" in objective terms. Good luck.

I see a ton of stuff that people call "Art" which to me fits more in the category of "Crap". Well, some of it fits into the category of "Total Crap", but a lot of it is just "Crap". I remember seeing some documentary where a guy would "paint" by throwing paint in front of a jet engine and letting the paint get blown back onto a Canvas. That is considered "Art". I'm sure the artist and the folks selling this stuff would argue about how he controls the "art" by how much color he uses when, blah blah blah.

Seriously you could argue that crap till your blue in the face and it really wouldn't matter because it's a matter of opinion, not objective fact. All art really falls into this category. It's a matter of subjective opinion as to what is and isn't worthy of being called "art" and even for the most part why. So I guess I just don't see a purpose in getting off into the weeds and trying to argue something that can't be objectively argued.

I know what I consider Art. I'm sure your views on the subject will be a bit different, just as someone elses would be different than your view or mine.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 4, 2014)

Your wish is my command.  Crappy Art......no really. :mrgreen:
Poop Culture: 11 Examples of Excellent Excrement Art | Urbanist


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 4, 2014)

timor said:


> Lew, looks like it was a very good idea to start this thread. At the end it will help us to define ourselves better. Especially that we are such a mixed bag of people.



Well, it was a little disappointing to me.

I was being honest about something that was important to me and deeply felt and many of the responses were of the category "you think you're better than me, well you ain't' or 'you have a different idea than I do and you're wrong' or 'I have nothing really to say so I'll try to say something funny and attract attention.' 

I care about photography a lot and the only reason I hang around here is for the company of the few people I like and/or admire and to be able to help newer people in some way. And this kind of discussion certainly damps my enthusiasm about putting time in.


----------



## timor (Mar 4, 2014)

Sorry you feel that way, Lew. You know, what they say: where two people there are three opinions. 
No wonder you are thinking about that a lot. Me to and looks like many others also give a thought to why we are doing this. Photography.
 It's an open forum, anyone can say, what he/she feels, but don't despair, many heard your and others voice. It needs a time to sink and be digested and revised. It will do good over the time. Also remember, if there would be no emotions in us, this forum would be dead. It is the passion, what drive us and passion could be quite militant. Think about those, who came to photography, but they have no opinion yet, how they feel about it. Let's hope, they were watching this thread to.


----------



## 71M (Mar 4, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> I have a show later this year and I'm at the point where I am going to investigate the other photographer and decide whether or not to withdraw.



Yes, be more selective of which exhibitions you decide to participate in, and the people that curate them.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 4, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Lew, looks like it was a very good idea to start this thread. At the end it will help us to define ourselves better. Especially that we are such a mixed bag of people.
> ...



Welcome to internet forums, where negative, yet thought out, opinions make you a meanie with a superiority complex, but I am totally justified when I offer a similar opinion in a different context.
/
People love to seem like they're the good guys in contrast to the overtly negative opinion. It's hard to explain. It's like someone who says "Who are you to judge art? Arrogant much?" But then in a photo thread they say "Yeah, this is a snapshot." People don't want to associate with the negativity because they're afraid it will hurt their social capital, but then in certain situations they feel justified giving similar negative feedback because "It's different in this instance."

I don't know if that makes sense. I can't explain it. It's just an observation I've noticed. People like to push back against what they perceive as strong or pretentious negativity even if they display the same negativity on their own in less obvious ways in other places...Or something.


----------



## 71M (Mar 4, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> _I don't know if that makes sense. I can't explain it. It's just an observation I've noticed._



- Pablo Picasso


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 4, 2014)

71M said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > _I don't know if that makes sense. I can't explain it. It's just an observation I've noticed._
> ...



Wait what?


----------



## 71M (Mar 4, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> 71M said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...




oh sorry, I thought you were quoting  Picasso...

"_I don't know if that makes sense. I can't explain it. It's just an observation I've noticed."_


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 4, 2014)

71M said:


> oh sorry, I thought you were quoting  Picasso...  "I don't know if that makes sense. I can't explain it. It's just an observation I've noticed."


  Ah gotcha. I don't recall that quote. I think I might've found it though and it does seem relevant to the thread. 

"Everyone wants to understand art. Why not try to understand the song of a bird? Why does one love the night, flowers, everything around one, without trying to understand them? But in the case of a painting people have to understand. If only they would realize above all that an artist works of necessity, that he himself is only a trifling bit of the world, and that no more importance should be attached to him than to plenty of other things which please us in the world, though we can't explain them. People who try to explain pictures are usually barking up the wrong tree."  -Pablo Picasso


----------



## 71M (Mar 4, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> 71M said:
> 
> 
> > oh sorry, I thought you were quoting  Picasso...  "I don't know if that makes sense. I can't explain it. It's just an observation I've noticed."
> ...



I was just kidding, it amused me that, amongst what you wrote, in your own words, was a good "quote" (about art), that you used in a different context, to express yourself...so good that I attributed it to a great artist.

The genuine Picasso quote you give is a good one.


----------



## jenko (Mar 5, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> It's like someone who says "Who are you to judge art? Arrogant much?" But then in a photo thread they say "Yeah, this is a snapshot." People don't want to associate with the negativity because they're afraid it will hurt their social capital, but then in certain situations they feel justified giving similar negative feedback because "It's different in this instance."



I understand what you are saying, but I don't feel it is hypocritical to offer feedback while at the same time believing the future value of a piece is largely unknowable. That has been the condition of pretty much every mentor in the history of art, including the greats, like Da Vinci. His mentor sent him to the royal court as a musician, not a painter. But music probably had an interesting influence on his work, so who knows. 

Pretty much throughout the history of art, there has been "mentorship." A less experienced artist under the guidance of a more experienced one. I see this forum as acting in that role to some extent, although it can also be a bit of the blind leading the blind. But there are different levels of experience here, and we can make some judgements based on what has worked and not worked in the past.  A "snapshot" for example, can absolutely work as "art". There are plenty of examples where it has worked, and some photographers have intentionally used the snapshot as a stylistic choice. 

I think critique starts to fail when one judges every image by a very narrow set of standards intended for a specific genre. It would be like judging the Eastern Canon by the Western Canon's standards. For hundreds of years, that is exactly what happened. Non western art was thought of as primitive and without value because it didn't conform to the standards of the Western canon. In the 60's, that all started to break down and any art critic worth listening to will adjust and adapt their criteria based on what they are looking at and its context. 

So, I think the biggest problem in critique is judging an image on a set of standards that are irrelevant. To judge every portrait based on the standards of commercial portraiture is a mistake, or every landscape on the standards of Ansel Adams, or every travel photograph on the standard of National Geographic, or even judgements based on personal likes and dislikes--hyperrealism, extent of processing, too dark, limited tonal ranges, unhappy subjects, unconventional color palettes, etc. 

Fortunately, I think we have a lot of very knowledgeable and experienced participants on this forum. Not to put anyone on the spot, but Derrel is really good at using standards appropriate to the image. He will comment on a commercial portrait and make great suggestions and turn around and comment on something less conventional and adapt his commentary to that vision  There are many, many others who have this ability. He just came to mind first. For myself, I have learned quite a bit on this forum, from posting my own images and from reading the critiques of others. Mainly it has been technical in nature, but that is fine with me because it helps me to make what I want to make, or gives me ideas of how to make something in a different way than the ways I have gotten used to.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 5, 2014)

jenko said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > It's like someone who says "Who are you to judge art? Arrogant much?" But then in a photo thread they say "Yeah, this is a snapshot." People don't want to associate with the negativity because they're afraid it will hurt their social capital, but then in certain situations they feel justified giving similar negative feedback because "It's different in this instance."
> ...




Oh I'm not saying people shouldn't critique or judge photos at all. I'm referring to a specific type of judging though, where the critic is sarcastic or somewhat snobby to the other person, but then they go into threads like this and they tell the OP to stop being such a snob.

Critique can be can and should be done without sounding arrogant.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Lew, looks like it was a very good idea to start this thread. At the end it will help us to define ourselves better. Especially that we are such a mixed bag of people.
> ...



I admire that, actually. I think there's two reasons, mainly. Photographic equipment, when new, tends to be rather expensive. I'm part of a Hasselblad group elsewhere, and it's quite amusing to see all these people basically claim that because they took it with their mighty expensive Hasselblad, it must be great or must be art or why don't I have 40 likes on this etc. I can only imagine it's WAY worse on a Leica site... The second is that there's the artistic potential in photography. Photographs can be art, though the vast, vast majority of them are not-like my product photos. They're not art, and nobody should ever pretend that a shot of a Sigma 28-80 on a white background IS art. It's not, and that's it. The artistic potential in photography attracts a similar mindset to the first: it's a photo THEY too, it must be art. Because they're an artist. I've been here long enough to see quite a few newer individuals get quite angry because their "art" wasn't perceived as such. So in summation, what I'm saying is, because of the price and the POTENTIAL (rarely realized) artistic value, photography attracts a LOT of arrogant pricks with too much god damned money.



*disclaimer: not calling any individuals out, so please don't taze me. No, not even a little. I have sensitive skin. Yes. Put it down.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 5, 2014)

rewritten for re-reading


----------



## manaheim (Mar 5, 2014)

Let's see...

A thread with the word "rant" in the title. [check]
A giant wall of text lamenting the things that other people do. [check]
Six pages of comments and counting. [check]

Yup. This thread has win written all over it.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2014)

lol. cool I will add to it.

im probably going to heat for this. But perhaps you all are making photography as a art into more than it actually is. Not to slight it at all, or the potential complexity. just sayn.
im also questioning the reasoning here, of what is art. Like there is some bar it has to reach to be art, some people to appease. Im not sure most historical highly recognized photos were intended by the photographer to be art or appease anyone at the time of shooting. The person (did he/she even consider themselves a artist or photographer?) was probably just taking the photo for their own pleasure, or for their own personal meaning. Next thing you know fourty years goes by and it is the national gallery of art acclaimed by critics. 
I bring this up because to create a imaginary bar (and oh yes, this bar that is being invented here is totally imaginary) is to say that a photo has to appease. To reach a standard of acclaim. A standard of proficiency. while I was under the impression most highly recognized, famous photos were not shot with the intention of hitting any imaginary bar or appeasing. I don't think most painters, sculptors or any other artists or even beetoven on the piano for all the reason had any goal of having others invent a bar for their work and then further following through on appeasing the others imaginary standards. I actually think the entire idea of this is idiotic.
Couple hundred years from now, they accidently turn up two photos. one done by a acclaimed professional and one done by a five year old with a insta-cam. Flip a quarter on which one they decide to throw out and which one they think might have some value. Or what if they just decide this. That this was the century of NO ARTISTS. what if they blackmark the entire century as the "lost art " or "bad photograph" century. Then they pretty much say everyone sucks. kind of like certain other periods in history when it was decided nothing worth a damn thing came out of it. so much for the high art bar then.

oh, and I think half the crap in studios and gallery's does suck. The times i've been in them seem hit or miss to me. But I guess if they are acclaimed by someone , or meet some rule or standard, hey , it must be good art eh?


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 5, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I was under the impression most highly recognized, famous photos were not shot with the intention of hitting any imaginary bar or appeasing. I don't think most painters, sculptors or any other artists or even beetoven on the piano for all the reason had any goal of having others invent a bar for their work and then further following through on appeasing the others imaginary standards.


. 

You're wrong.


----------



## AlanO (Mar 5, 2014)

> So often I go to shows where photography is displayed and I see images that are out of focus or poorly processed or mis-framed - and these are not creative decisions but unrecognized or ignored defects - and the photographer waves off these issues as being unimportant. It is as if everything that any artist does in preparation for being able to create and sustain that window into another reality just doesn't count. That, because they don't know or care, they believe they have invented a new way to create by skipping over all of this knowledge, craft, experience stuff that all the rest of us struggle with. It's a great time saver not to actually have to 'know' anything or be able to 'do' anything with any degree of skill. (While it may seem like I am placing undue emphasis on technical 'correctness' as opposed to the art of any image, my attitude is that technical issues are totally irrelevant until they detract from the image - and then technical faults become enormously important.)



My favorite paragraph and sentence from the rewrite... Points are reasonable and valid, IMHO.


----------



## timor (Mar 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > I was under the impression most highly recognized, famous photos were not shot with the intention of hitting any imaginary bar or appeasing. I don't think most painters, sculptors or any other artists or even beetoven on the piano for all the reason had any goal of having others invent a bar for their work and then further following through on appeasing the others imaginary standards.
> ...


I second Lew here. Artists, often, love to show off. They love the fame and admiration of the public.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > I was under the impression most highly recognized, famous photos were not shot with the intention of hitting any imaginary bar or appeasing. I don't think most painters, sculptors or any other artists or even beetoven on the piano for all the reason had any goal of having others invent a bar for their work and then further following through on appeasing the others imaginary standards.
> ...


If you believe so. Please show me im wrong. 

 Lew, I think you are suffering from generation gap. To be honest. my old man give mes **** for not doing things "the right way" (the old way). I surely cant perceive why my younger adolescent does or thinks like she does. The world changes, art changes. No one wants to look at younger generations and changes because we automatically think its going down hill. And if we really like something, we don't want to see it change.
No one likes change.


----------



## timor (Mar 5, 2014)

I don't think it has much to do with changing times. Basic mans psyche is the same and that is competitiveness. A desire to be the best.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2014)

timor said:


> I don't think it has much to do with changing times. Basic mans psyche is the same and that is competitiveness. A desire to be the best.


 no comprende.   im just a guy that takes photos.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 6, 2014)

To consider one's self an artist and show things in some stuffy gallery or the like takes some modicum of narcissism. There's a desire to have others WANT their work or that theirs is somehow superior enough to deserve the attention they want it to receive. It also requires many, many turtlenecks.

To consider one's self a photographer isn't the same. A photographer can create art, and it can be worthy of being shown in stuffy galleries and yadda yadda yadda. It's the title that seems to make the difference.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 6, 2014)

Oh, I forgot ...

A thread with labeling of other individuals and ascribing characteristics to them based upon overgeneralization. [check]

7 pages...


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Oh, I forgot ...
> 
> A thread with labeling of other individuals and ascribing characteristics to them based upon overgeneralization. [check]
> 
> 7 pages...



True, but the turtleneck suggestion sounded good.  And maybe a pipe.   Ya, I think maybe I could pull that off.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 6, 2014)

So now you not only have to be an "artist" to enjoy photography but you also have to exist in a certain social circle?
Some guy on here once commented to me that my photography isn't the problem, it's me. 
Well, considering the alternative, I'll take that as a compliment.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 6, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Oh, I forgot ...
> 
> A thread with labeling of other individuals and ascribing characteristics to them based upon overgeneralization. [check]
> 
> 7 pages...



So your point is to come in here and make yourself look so much better than us by being cynical?

As a moderator you really should try not to be such an asshat.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong.
> ...



Since you seem to have a never ending supply of ludicrous beliefs completely without basis in fact, when you assert something it is really up to you to convince the reader that you are right,
Since history and common knowledge is not on your side in this one, it will be interesting to hear some justification for your belief.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> So now you not only have to be an "artist" to enjoy photography but you also have to exist in a certain social circle?
> Some guy on here once commented to me that my photography isn't the problem, it's me.
> Well, considering the alternative, I'll take that as a compliment.



Lol Rick, this is genius.  You know what you have here?  The best idea for a new reality tv series ever.  We throw on some plaid shirts, grab our cameras and have a film crew follow us as we shoot art openings.

They can document the hilarity as we interact with the upper echelon of the fine art world.

I've even got a title, "Photography with the Philistines"

Lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

AlanO said:


> > So often I go to shows where photography is displayed and I see images that are out of focus or poorly processed or mis-framed - and these are not creative decisions but unrecognized or ignored defects - and the photographer waves off these issues as being unimportant. It is as if everything that any artist does in preparation for being able to create and sustain that window into another reality just doesn't count. That, because they don't know or care, they believe they have invented a new way to create by skipping over all of this knowledge, craft, experience stuff that all the rest of us struggle with. It's a great time saver not to actually have to 'know' anything or be able to 'do' anything with any degree of skill. (While it may seem like I am placing undue emphasis on technical 'correctness' as opposed to the art of any image, my attitude is that technical issues are totally irrelevant until they detract from the image - and then technical faults become enormously important.)
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite paragraph and sentence from the rewrite... Points are reasonable and valid, IMHO.





The_Traveler said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I forgot ...
> ...



Lew, you just couldn't possibly get any cuddlier!

Do you practice being this adorable or does it just come naturally?

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 6, 2014)

It's interesting to try to have an actual discussion here; it's like having a conversation in the midst of a crowd of upset ducks.
Everyone who has nothing to contribute to the discussion chimes in with some version of 'look at me, look at me'.
I really don't care about other people's obsessions with their own wittiness or feelings of inadequacy and how they deal with them, I just wish they would ignore my threads.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> It's interesting to try to have an actual discussion here; it's like having a conversation in the midst of a crowd of upset ducks.
> Everyone who has nothing to contribute to the discussion chimes in with some version of 'look at me, look at me'.
> I really don't care about other people's obsessions with their own wittiness or feelings of inadequacy and how they deal with them, I just wish they would ignore my threads.



Well Lew to be fair you can't really have an "actual discussion" if you simply dismiss anything that doesn't agree 100% with your original premise.  I think if you took the time to read back through your responses you'll find that this is a prevalent theme.

And yes, their are some of us who can and will interject a little humor now and again, but for a lot of us it isn't for the egotistical reasons you wish to assign.   Their are folks here who will try to deflect a lot of the hostility on both sides by adding a bit of humor before the thread explodes into some totally out of control testosterone fest.

I'm guilty - you bet.  

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349 (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> It's interesting to try to have an actual discussion here; it's like having a conversation in the midst of a crowd of upset ducks.
> Everyone who has nothing to contribute to the discussion chimes in with some version of 'look at me, look at me'.
> I really don't care about other people's obsessions with their own wittiness or feelings of inadequacy and how they deal with them, I just wish they would ignore my threads.


Lew, from the very beginning of this thread you have demonstrated that you are not interested in having a discussion.  This has been nothing more than a rant about your  personal likes and dislikes that you have asserted are the correct beliefs and feelings.  I'm not sure if this whole thing started from your wond feelings of inadequacy and this is the way you deal with them. or you obsession with what you feel is just in right in the "art" of photography.   While this may be a crowd of ducks, you have demonstrated that you are the Aflac Duck in the group quacking the loudest.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 6, 2014)

this thread delivers


----------



## ratssass (Mar 6, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting to try to have an actual discussion here; it's like having a conversation in the midst of a crowd of upset ducks.
> ...




your wrong


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

ratssass said:


> your wrong



Rotflmao - ok that just made my whole day 

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 6, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Well Lew to be fair you can't really have an "actual discussion" if you simply dismiss anything that doesn't agree 100% with your original premise. I think if you took the time to read back through your responses you'll find that this is a prevalent theme.
> 
> And yes, their are some of us who can and will interject a little humor now and again, but for a lot of us it isn't for the egotistical reasons you wish to assign. Their are folks here who will try to deflect a lot of the hostility on both sides by adding a bit of humor before the thread explodes into some totally out of control testosterone fest.
> 
> ...



I call BS on this.
Look back at your own posts, not just here, your behavior is to run in, try and say something funny whatever the situation and then back away.

On my deflecting other people's input.
You know that's called discussion.
I make a point, someone else makes a point.
I don't have to agree.

Go back and reread some posts, I just did.
I continued to talk about what I thought, the constant refrain from others were either in partial agreement or trying to discredit what I thought because I was 'angry.' 

It wasn't me that started ad hominem remarks; as I remember Rick58 called me something, I won't look back to find it.
Do you ever think that the way discussions are routinely broken up ir diverted here by hecklers or comedians that actually diminishes the quality of the forum?




gryphonslair99 said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting to try to have an actual discussion here; it's like having a conversation in the midst of a crowd of upset ducks.
> ...



Go back and see if you can find where I talked about other people here - and see where people started attacking my position and my reasons for writing this.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 6, 2014)

ratssass said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



Funny, but better without the spelling error.


----------



## ratssass (Mar 6, 2014)

you're wrong


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> I call BS on this.
> Look back at your own posts, not just here, your behavior is to run in, try and say something funny whatever the situation and then back away.
> 
> On my deflecting other people's input.
> ...



Actually Lew I do interject what I find to be humourous comments on occasion, but I also discuss things in a more serious light quite often as well. If I find that the OP or whoever I'm discussing something with is completely unwilling to converse or exchange ideas then I don't bother proceeding. You'll find evidence of that in this very thread, if you'd care to take a gander back at some of the original postings I made you will find I did try to address the subject in a more serious light.

It became abundantly clear very quickly that you had no desire to actually discuss the topic. So my options were I could either continue to try and approach the subject seriously and simply be dismissed as you have with myself and everyone else who didn't agree with you wholeheartedly, or I could do what little I could to keep the thread from exploding. I chose to do the later. If you take issue with that, you'll simply have to find a tissue I'm afraid. I will most likely be doing the same thing in the future. 

Deflecting anything that doesn't agree with your original premise is not a discussion. Discussion : the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas

You cannot exchange ideas if you completely ignore or dismiss anything that wasn't in lockstep with your original premise. So if you must cry BS, this would be an excellent place to start I would think. Disagreeing with someone elses point, if you make a rational argument to support your disagreement would be fine and would certainly be part of a valid discussion. But let's face it Lew, that's not what's been happening here. You haven't been making rational arguments, you have been completely dismissing anything that disagrees with your premise out of hand. 

As for who started with the personal attacks, it wasn't something I brought up but since you did in your reply I'll be happy to respond. I would submit that it really doesn't matter, and it certainly doesn't give on leave to personally attack one poster because you were personally attacked by another. If you feel you were the subject of a personal attack, then report it to the mods and let them deal with it. You can't discourage childish behavior with more childish behavior.

As for so many people telling you that your angry, have you ever stopped to wonder where they are getting this impression?


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 6, 2014)

ratssass said:


> you're wrong



funny 

Ipad & safari don't seem to like smileys.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> lol. cool I will add to it.
> 
> im probably going to heat for this. But perhaps you all are making photography as a art into more than it actually is. Not to slight it at all, or the potential complexity. just sayn.
> im also questioning the reasoning here, of what is art. Like there is some bar it has to reach to be art, some people to appease. Im not sure most historical highly recognized photos were intended by the photographer to be art or appease anyone at the time of shooting. The person (did he/she even consider themselves a artist or photographer?) was probably just taking the photo for their own pleasure, or for their own personal meaning. Next thing you know fourty years goes by and it is the national gallery of art acclaimed by critics.
> ...



Back several hundreds of years ago there used to be rigorous academies of art in Europe. They took several years to complete (I believe 4?) with each year focusing on a specific foundation of painting (and possibly other forms of art, but through the past 500 years painting has been kind of considered the big daddy mac of art), until in the last year they would seek out a skilled mentor and would typically try and reproduce one of their best artworks. A lot of the masters of painting went through the academy or had apprentices in the academy.

Some of the most influential artists, however, are also those who opposed the "idealistic" views of the academy. One spin-off of this criticism was impressionism, which is a naturalistic approach to painting and art. It's not as calculated and academic as a lot of the art before it.

There has always been a bar. It just depends on how much you care or how applicable that bar is.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 6, 2014)

Also; there is A LOT (see: A WHOLE HELL OF A ALOT) more artistic freedom than there used to be. Back 200 years ago, mixed media was hardly even a thing. Even 100 years ago, people would spit on you if you were a photographer and considered yourself and artist. Art has always been about the definition and the categorizing.

I think my issue with modern artists is how, and I think this is evident in many artist statement, they all think really, really highly of themselves. Like, many famous artists through history have committed suicide or have almost wasted away because they couldn't profit from their art, but modern artists are very "I'm an artist, and even though I can't actually get anyone to pay attention and I work at a coffee shop because I can't sell enough art to live, I am f-ing amazing."

That's not to say that all past artists were depressed and suicidal. Salvadore Dali was very egotistical, for instance. But the current generation of artists seem generally entitled and just so self-absorbed that there aren't appears to be trying too hard.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 6, 2014)

I LOVE all the sweeping generalizations about artists, that really aren't true. 
But if that makes you feel good, carry on.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 6, 2014)

I still have no ****ing clue what am artist really is. If one of my images ends up on a wall of a Museum...am I an artist? I am getting the hell outta this biz!


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I LOVE all the sweeping generalizations about artists, that really aren't true.
> But if that makes you feel good, carry on.



Well let me ask you then good sir, what purpose would the internet serve if not for the promulgaton of such ridiculous stereotypes?  Lol -  Oh wait.  I made a funny.  On Lew's thread.  Yikes.  I am a bad, bad man.. lol


----------



## table1349 (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> ratssass said:
> 
> 
> > you're wrong
> ...


Sent from my iPad....
:thumbup::lmao:ldman::smileys::cheers:

Works for me..


----------



## lambertpix (Mar 6, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Back several hundreds of years ago there used to be rigorous academies of art in Europe. They took several years to complete (I believe 4?) with each year focusing on a specific foundation of painting (and possibly other forms of art, but through the past 500 years painting has been kind of considered the big daddy mac of art), until in the last year they would seek out a skilled mentor and would typically try and reproduce one of their best artworks. A lot of the masters of painting went through the academy or had apprentices in the academy.
> 
> Some of the most influential artists, however, are also those who opposed the "idealistic" views of the academy. One spin-off of this criticism was impressionism, which is a naturalistic approach to painting and art. It's not as calculated and academic as a lot of the art before it.
> 
> There has always been a bar. It just depends on how much you care or how applicable that bar is.



Can the notion of "skill" be separated from "art"?  Clearly, skill can be taught, learned, and maybe even measured.  I think for photographers, skill usually translates into the technical aspects of photography -- the stuff that's easier to evaluate and critique.

Art, though, is harder to measure, but it's the stuff most of us aspire to.  Other disciplines have this sort of dichotomy, too.  Sports commentators can look at a quarterback and say that he's got flawed throwing dynamics (skill), but he's a great leader and a great competitor, so maybe he's still a good quarterback.  Whereas sports has a scoreboard, though, all we've got to really measure the "success" of art is commercial success.

I think if you're happy with commercial success as a measure of whether art is good, then you have to accept gallery showings, etc., as the de-facto measuring sticks of that success.  Figuring out what drives success in that paradigm is a whole other discussion, but you can't criticize the galleries in that paradigm, because they're deterministic.

On the other hand, if you believe that the value of art isn't measured commercially, then gallery showings are just anecdotal -- no more meaningful than the preponderance of cat photos on the internet.  Go figure out how *you* want to value art, and then work to that end.  Maybe the value of your art is just for you, and if anyone else finds it pleasant, then so be it.  If you're trying to please someone else with your art, though, I think much more thought needs to be invested in understanding the viewer rather than in trying to *fix* the viewer.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> It wasn't me that started ad hominem remarks; as I remember Rick58 called me something, I won't look back to find it.



Hey hold on there slick. Maybe you SHOULD go back and re-read my post. I merely quoted a definition. Now if you think that grease belongs on your wheel, well...


----------



## Derrel (Mar 6, 2014)

I think we need to give The_Traveler a little leeway here, and cut him some slack. It's tough being the guy who is always correct when he rants about the inadequacies of others and who constantly must deal with the heavy burden of his own moral superiority and correctness. It can get pretty tough dealing with one's artistic inferiors, day after day. Surely none of knows from experience how trying it must be to be the best artist and the best craftsman in a three-person show. Imagine how awful it must be to deal with the fear of having one's superior artistry and craft possibly confused with the chit-grade work of co-exhibitors. So, come on, let's give the guy his rant and all nod in unanimous assent that his position is *the* position. Oh...better throw in a smiley here.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I think we need to give The_Traveler a little leeway here, and cut him some slack. It's tough being the guy who is always correct when he rants about the inadequacies of others and who constantly must deal with the heavy burden of his own moral superiority and correctness. It can get pretty tough dealing with one's artistic inferiors, day after day. Surely none of knows from experience how trying it must be to be the best artist and the best craftsman in a three-person show. Imagine how awful it must be to deal with the fear of having one's superior artistry and craft possibly confused with the chit-grade work of co-exhibitors. So, come on, let's give the guy his rant and all nod in unanimous assent that his position is *the* position. Oh...better throw in a smiley here.



You're right Derrel, Sorry Lew.


----------



## 71M (Mar 6, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Some of the most influential artists, however, are also those who opposed the "idealistic" views of the academy. One spin-off of this criticism was impressionism, which is a naturalistic approach to painting and art. It's not as calculated and academic as a lot of the art before it.



Impressionist, fauvist, cubist: churlish, patronizing, and derisory terms, originally dreamt up by critics and detractors. Artists such as Cezanne, van Gogh, Gauguin, Braque, movements like Die Brücke_, _Bauhaus, De Stijl, CoBrA etc, were idealistic.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 6, 2014)

71M said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the most influential artists, however, are also those who opposed the "idealistic" views of the academy. One spin-off of this criticism was impressionism, which is a naturalistic approach to painting and art. It's not as calculated and academic as a lot of the art before it.
> ...



Really? From what I read, they weren't idealistic because their motives were vastly different (among other things). 

They didn't like the mythological/religious overtones of much of the academic art, and they didn't see landscapes and still life's as the low hanging fruit of painting.

They weren't idealistic in the way of the academy.

Bauhaus and De Stijl are two styles that are far removed from the original academy as well.


----------



## 71M (Mar 6, 2014)

The atelier method/Salon monopoly was establishment art-from-a-mold, both in terms of rigid technique and narrowly defined 'appropriate subjectivity'. The new-wave artists wanted to tackle fresh subjects, in new ways.


----------



## 71M (Mar 6, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> 71M said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



No, but all driven by ideologies; read Gauguin's letters, read van Gogh's letters, Cezanne's; read Die Brücke's or CoBrA's manifesto, (how can a group draw up a manifesto, if it has no ideals?); Picasso and Braque: "we were like two mountaineers, roped together" - in an idealistic pursuit of a new form of art. Bauhaus: a narrow, dogmatic approach to design, instituted as a school. It's surprising that the course of Modern Art is perceived as rudderless 'dabbling'. It wasn't like that.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 6, 2014)

Ansel Adams, Tack Sharp, Film Vs Digital, Artist vs Photographer... /stir the pot


----------



## timor (Mar 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it has much to do with changing times. Basic mans psyche is the same and that is competitiveness. A desire to be the best.
> ...


 My grandmother also takes pictures. But she is not on this or any other for that matter photo forum as you and I do. No, you're much more, than just a guy that takes photos. You have ambition to become better and I like that.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 6, 2014)

What seems to be most threatening to the group at large is that someone has an opinion that is different from theirs and won't give it up.
So the group responds by trying to argue him out of it.
And if that doesn't work, the group tries to denigrate the opinion by making fun.

I think, exactly what I thought when I started, which is that when technical imperfections get between the viewer and the art, that is the only time that technical issues matter.
I also thought that it was a shame that gallery committees, and it was a committee that chose that show, knew so little about photography that they ignored the issues with the photographers and pictures chosen.
I also thought that 'artists' of a caliber to show should have mastered their craft enough so that their technical inadequacies didn't disrupt their work.

If any of you had any point to make about those issues, besides telling me that I didn't have the right to have an opinion or that I was angry and therefore wrong, well that was totally missed.


----------



## timor (Mar 6, 2014)

2WheelPhoto said:


> this thread delivers


This thread is touching deep emotions. Photography is only a pretext.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 6, 2014)




----------



## timor (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> What seems to be most threatening to the group at large is that someone has an opinion that is different from theirs and won't give it up.
> So the group responds by trying to argue him out of it.
> And if that doesn't work, the group tries to denigrate the opinion by making fun.
> 
> ...


You're still here. Good. If we will give up our opinions and agree on one I am out of here. Luckily this forum is not dominated by few individuals, who know everything, it is they way or highway. No, never give up, if you do, you're finished. My question was only, if you direct your frustration on the right group of people. Anyone have the right to think about him/her as of artist and it is the society job to evaluate such a claim. The skills of that evaluations are watered down by a want of a better feel about ourselves. You are right, technical skill in photography is very important, just luck is not enough. Luck is inconsistent, artist should be. Many creates pictures for amusement or decoration, but that's not enough. Art should have a lasting consequence. But that is not easily visible in the thick fog of mass creation, only time will filter that. If any of us is creating anything of lasting consequence there will be a Wiki page about him in the future.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 6, 2014)

timor said:


> You're still here.



Why would I leave?
If I get bored, maybe.


----------



## oldhippy (Mar 6, 2014)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some evaluate art. Other rely on critique. Often it is a cultural. The accepted idea of art changes in some instances.  Art Dada great for some, crap for others. Price line to often dictates the value of art.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 6, 2014)

There are several different issues being discussed in this thread.
1) Relation of craftsmanship to artistry,
2) Artistry as a way of finding new ways of expression,
3) Discussion of artistic merit,
4) Whether photography is a craft, an art, or both
5) Whether one can be a photographic artist without knowing the craft
6) The role of galleries in maintaining certain standards
7) Whether self-declaring oneself as an artist makes one an artist.

Apologies in advance to those with short attention spans  this is going to be a longish post.  If lots of words offend you, please move to the next post with ROFLMAO.:greenpbl: (or scroll to the bottom).

Now then.

As was pointed out in the definition of craftsman (quoted by Bribrius in post 23), a craftsman is a) _one who is highly skilled in a craft, and/or b) an artist_.  If we look up the definition of artist, we have various definitions but two that apply in this context are: _a) A person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria, and b) A person whose work exhibits exceptional skill._  There are further definitions regarding commercial artists, performing artists, and quick-buck artists.

The phrases highly skilled and exceptional skill both imply a technical mastery of the craft or art.  The artistic part comes in when the quality of the result is subject to aesthetic criteria.  In general if it appeals to the imagination and/or emotions (excitement, awe, envy, anger, disgust) it is art.  If it leaves you with feelings of indifference, boredom, disinterest, or I dont get it., it will go into the crap category.  However, well-executed "crap" that goes against the current artistic grain may well become the new "art" if it gets accepted (for conceptual, stylistic, or other reasons).  Poorly-executed "crap" stays for the most part in the "crap" category, no matter how many flowery words are used to perfume it.  In other words, your art may be someones crap and youll both be right.

When it comes to technical equipment, highly-skilled usually describes a technician.  Here the definition is: a) a person who is an expert in the practical application of a science, and b) a person skilled in the technique of an art or craft.  The focus is on the fidelity of execution, and subjective criteria do not apply.  The operating words are accuracy, precision, and conformance to performance criteria.  Since cameras, photographic equipment and processes are technical in nature, it is quite possible for someone to be a superb photographic technician, without having any artistic component.  Crime photography, training photography, illustrative photography and scientific photography are some examples of where technical execution is much more important than any esthetic attribute.

And yet, being human, very few of us can put aside all emotional criteria, and even in the case of purely technical photography, there is the attempt to create pleasing images.  We see this in the choice of colours by astrophotographers, in the framing of subjects by microscopists, in the positioning and lighting by product illustrators.  This appeal to engage the aesthetic components of our perception contributes to our engagement with the image, beyond the purely intellectual.  So the technician becomes the craftsman/artist, if the image can be judged on aesthetic grounds.

Ok, but is it art?  One definition of art is:  _The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power_.  This definition skips lightly over literature, poetry, theatre, dance, music, and other forms of expression, but it is adequate for discussion of photography.

The current debate in this thread is that "art" is in the eye of the beholder, and that is true, in that the assessment of beauty or emotional power is subjective and can be conditioned by cultural norms, experience and training, personal psychology, world-view and personal character.  And yet, it is common to find groupings of opinion that declare THIS is ART, and others outside that group that shout just as vehemently NO, that is CRAP!.  If the in-group controls the galleries and the art schools, chances are excellent that the art they champion is or will become the established artistic norm.  That is, until they get replaced by the next in-group.  And so we see the progression of a work through stages of 1) Ugh  Crap.  2) Avant-garde and edgy.  3)  Genius finally recognized!  4)  Kinda, old school.  5)  It was important at a time...  6)  Who?  What?

Which brings us to the subject of the taste-makers  the galleries and art schools.  Some are run as money-making enterprises, churning out (or exhibiting) whatever is the current flavour-de-jour.  If youre willing to buy it, were willing to teach it or sell it.  The only colour that is relevant is how much green there is.  And as such, these tend to follow trends, not make them.  

Then there are galleries and art schools that have an agenda  they have a mission to educate the rest of us unwashed and ignorant clods into having some inkling of appreciation for the true art.  If they succeed in their propaganda and mission, they become the new king-makers and make a ridiculous amount of money in the process.  Usually, however, they fail and are displaced by either the money-makers or new agenda-pushers.

There are also galleries that are more community-oriented, and their mission is to expose and feature local talent (whether the local talent has any or not is not the point).  If the person or committee in charge of the gallery has any arts training or experience, then there is usually some sense to the curation that they provide.  It usually doesnt take long for the approach taken by the curators to be widely know, and the gallery will then preferentially appeal to certain types of artists.  As with friends, you get judged by the kind of company you keep (or are exhibited with).

In my community, we are fortunate to have a number of public and private galleries available to exhibit in.  Some cater only to established, well-known artists.  Others will exhibit unknown artists who satisfy the aesthetic criteria of the gallery owner.  Some encourage new artists.  Others will exhibit anything for money.  Members of my photo club regularly exhibit in these galleries, but as noted earlier, not every gallery will accept any exhibition proposal.  You have to know if 1) your work fits into their mandate, and 2) if their exhibition practices are acceptable to you.  We have had the better-known photographers sponsor (ie, co-exhibit) with lesser-known ones to ease the entry of the new photographers into the harder-to-access galleries, with some success.

One thing that has come out of these exhibitions is the range of expression of what is good.  There are the ones that focus on the pretty and cute, some go with conceptual (abstract, b&w, patterns, stylistic), and a few (actually only one that Im aware of) go for the gut-wrenching emotional (a series on the dying, another of the homeless, another of abused animals).  The latter were featured at a community gallery by a curator with a strong social vision.  Many members of her community felt very offended that this crap was being exhibited at their gallery.  Shes still around, but the background buzz was that she had a few tense meetings with the board of her community center.

On the other hand, pretty and cute do appeal to the majority of viewers, just as most people want food that tastes good and dont care about nutrition, fat-and-sugar content, or other such details.  The obesity and diabetes epidemics are partly due to the fact that many want tasty, easy and cheap ahead of whats good and nutritious.  Why should the visual arts be any different?

Oh, if youre still reading  youre an anomaly.  

@Lew - you need to find a better gallery.

@ those who think Lew is hogging the soap-box:  He has his opinions.  We've also seen his images.  I don't know what the other exhibitors were showing, but if it was one of the community galleries that display anything and everything, then I'm not too surprised that there is a difference in quality.  It doesn't make Lew the arbitrator of taste (as some have implied) - it means he needs to get into a gallery that is compatible with his standards.

ROTFLMAO.  So there.


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 6, 2014)

You're wrong


----------



## pgriz (Mar 6, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> You're wrong



Won't be the first time...


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> What seems to be most threatening to the group at large is that someone has an opinion that is different from theirs and won't give it up.
> So the group responds by trying to argue him out of it.
> And if that doesn't work, the group tries to denigrate the opinion by making fun.
> 
> ...



Well ok, a little hard to determine who if anyone this is supposedly addressed to, since you didn't quote anyone and normally that would indicate it was directed at the OP - which really doesn't make a lot of sense since you are the OP.

So I will respond on my own behalf, because I don't speak for this "group" you speak of, I don't belong to any such group, I don't represent a group or post with a group in mind.  I only speak for myself, as I have always done.  There are times when I do agree with some of the other people here and the points they wish to make, and there are times when I disagree with them even though it's the same people.  I've actually agreed with some of what you've posted on occasion, so if anything by your assertion that would make you part of the very "group" that you now decry.

Again, speaking solely of my own responses on the topic, I never tried to "talk you out" of anything.  I did express that yes, there are a lot of folks out there who think buying a DSLR automatically makes them a professional photographer, even though they lack the skills and experience to use it properly.  On that point we actually agree as far as I can tell.  What I did express that you apparently take issue with, however, is that it's a little difficult to define "art" the way you would need to define it to make your point at all valid.

Somebody brought up the cross in urine thing earlier.  To me, eh.. not art.  I just saw it as cheap attempt at ginning up controversy and therefore selling tickets.  But you know, some people did consider it art.  I don't get it myself, but I don't get to appoint myself grand poohbah and keeper/defender of what is or not considered art.

So until somebody can come up with an objective definition of what is and is not considered art, all we can truly judge is what we do and don't like - not what should or should not be labeled as art. 

You'll also note that at least for my part I never once told you that you were wrong, what I did try to tell you in as gentle a way possible was that your point was entirely moot before it was even posted.  Since the gentle version was ignored completely and dismissed outright I will take you at your word and assume that your intent here really is one for discussion, the exchange of ideas, and give it to you in the same blunt hard hitting style that you use on so many others, myself included.  So, here goes:

You can frankly piss and moan about stuff like this till you are completely blue in the face and it won't change a thing.  We are still going to see several postings this month from the "Hi, just picked up my first DSLR and I've opened my own wedding photography business" crowd.  So my only point to you was that maybe that's something you just need to learn to accept, rather than having it be something you apparently let drive you crazy all the time.  An assumption on my part, at least to a small extent, but a logical one considering the amazing amount of time you seem to spend bitching on this topic.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 6, 2014)

robbins.photo said:
			
		

> You can frankly piss and moan about stuff like this till you are completely blue in the face and it won't change a thing.  We are still going to see several postings this month from the "Hi, just picked up my first DSLR and I've opened my own wedding photography business" crowd.  So my only point to you was that maybe that's something you just need to learn to accept, rather than having it be something you apparently let drive you crazy all the time.  An assumption on my part, at least to a small extent, but a logical one considering the amazing amount of time you seem to spend bitching on this topic.



I wonder how long before a, "Just picked up my first d-slr!" person needs to wait before self-proclaiming possession of artist status? Any ideas on that from the OP, or from other members? Are there a series of ever more difficult and challenging photographer's guild tests to separate apprentice from journeyman from master from grand master skill levels?


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmm.. ok, like this idea.  Can we use spears?  Or at least a pipe wrench?  I mean if you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a ball, right? - lol

I am pretty curious though to see a response on this one - if any.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dunno, Derrel.  I'm thinking we're beating the "artist" tag to death.  If someone's work appeals to the emotion in a viewer, then the work can be considered "artistic" .  How well does that appeal work, and to how many people it affects, is probably something that will indicate how "good" the artist is.   With many people, it takes training and study to fan the ember of talent that they may have into a flame.  Some people have their talent level already at "very hot", and they don't need much edikashun to make that work for them.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 6, 2014)

AN interesting note on "artist" versus "photographer" differentiation. One of America's premier commercial shooters, Joel Grimes, a guy so well-known that his style of images have earned a name, specifically "the Joel Grimes look". He recently did a three-day course on CreativeLive.com, and one of his central messages was for people to, "Define yourself as an artist, not just 'a photographer'," because as he explained very pointedly, the work of a photographer is a cheap commodity, with limited earning potential, but "an artist's work" has basically, unlimited value in the marketplace. He stressed that art directors, editors, and other buyers of photography VALUE the work of artists, but the work of 'photographers' is nowhere near as highly-valued, nor does it earn anywhere near the prestige or the monetary compensation that the work of an 'artist' commands.

Take a look at his web site's URL...it contains the word ARTIST--in all caps!!! as in *joelgrimes.com/ARTIST*

Joel Grimes Portfolios


----------



## pgriz (Mar 6, 2014)

Thank you, Derrel - excellent link.  Yes, the man is an artist.  No other way to describe his work.  

Perhaps the dichotomy between "photographer" and "artist" is that the first usually records "what is", and the artist shows us "what could/should/may be".


----------



## Derrel (Mar 6, 2014)

pgriz said:


> Thank you, Derrel - excellent link.  Yes, the man is an artist.  No other way to describe his work.
> 
> Perhaps the dichotomy between "photographer" and "artist" is that the first usually records "what is", and the artist shows us "what could/should/may be".



For those who did not see the Joel Grimes CreativeLive course, let me relate a story from it. Grimes mentioned that he often uses a wide-angle lens from "too close" of a distance to take the "face" or "person" shots; the face or person is then later composited onmto a suitable background image; he also mentioned that he KNOWS that his lighting scheme with its two bright accent lights, one on each side of a person's face, sends the subliminal message that, "There are two suns!"; he KNOWS that the faces have distortion from shooting from three feet away with the short end of a 24-70mm zoom; he said he KNOWS that technically or traditionally speaking, these things are "wrong". His reasoning that these things are fine? "I'm an ARTIST! It's part of MY artistic vision."


----------



## timor (Mar 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good one. Unfortunately photography is not a real profession, anyone can claim it and anyone can say he is an artist. There is no licence, no overviewing body, no bar to pass. Society decides. You can make money on this - good for you. You can't ? Find a real job.


----------



## timor (Mar 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Joel Grimes Portfolios


OMG ! That's photography ? Looks more like a mastery of digital graphics. Whatever... if it sells... must be great... :hail:

No, no. It is not bad, I like it. looks like G. Smith on steroids.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At least 3 weeks. That's about the minimum, really.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



Ok.. but would that be like three weeks straight?  Or can you split that up.. say like do two days this month, and then like 4 days next month.. lol


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 6, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> You'll also note that at least for my part I never once told you that you were wrong, what I did try to tell you in as gentle a way possible was that your point was entirely moot before it was even posted.  Since the gentle version was ignored completely and dismissed outright I will take you at your word and assume that your intent here really is one for discussion, the exchange of ideas, and give it to you in the same blunt hard hitting style that you use on so many others, myself included.  So, here goes:
> 
> You can frankly piss and moan about stuff like this till you are completely blue in the face and it won't change a thing.  We are still going to see several postings this month from the "Hi, just picked up my first DSLR and I've opened my own wedding photography business" crowd.  So my only point to you was that maybe that's something you just need to learn to accept, rather than having it be something you apparently let drive you crazy all the time.  An assumption on my part, at least to a small extent, but a logical one considering the amazing amount of time you seem to spend bitching on this topic.



Your reading comprehension suffers greatly in the face of your urgent desire to appear both witty. 
I couldn't give less of a crap about people with new dslrs.
As I said before, I do care that people who both self-promote as artists and who are treated that way by gallery owners are technically inept, thus sabotaging both their own work and the image of photography as an art form.


----------



## timor (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Do you mean " new people with dslrs." Don't you buy sometimes new equipment ?


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 6, 2014)

timor said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Do you mean " new people with dslrs." Don't you buy sometimes new equipment ?
> ...


----------



## bribrius (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > You'll also note that at least for my part I never once told you that you were wrong, what I did try to tell you in as gentle a way possible was that your point was entirely moot before it was even posted. Since the gentle version was ignored completely and dismissed outright I will take you at your word and assume that your intent here really is one for discussion, the exchange of ideas, and give it to you in the same blunt hard hitting style that you use on so many others, myself included. So, here goes:
> ...


Does this mean YOU DO THINK I could get some of my crappiest photos into a gallery?


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 6, 2014)

It's usually from date of purchase, not shutter time. It's not based on experience or skill, of course.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > You'll also note that at least for my part I never once told you that you were wrong, what I did try to tell you in as gentle a way possible was that your point was entirely moot before it was even posted. Since the gentle version was ignored completely and dismissed outright I will take you at your word and assume that your intent here really is one for discussion, the exchange of ideas, and give it to you in the same blunt hard hitting style that you use on so many others, myself included. So, here goes:
> ...



Ok, first we have a supposition without basis in fact. I don't care if I appear witty. If people think I am great, if they think I'm not that's fine with me as well. If I can brighten someone elses day wonderful. If it doesn't work, well I am not lessened for the attempt.

As for my reading comprehension, well I actually have always gotten very high scores on most objective tests I've been given in that regard, far above the national average in fact. I seriously doubt there is anyone here, other than yourself, who wouldn't state that you have exhibited an obvious disdain for people who have little to no experience and who wish to setup a photography business. It is a topic that you have complained about over and over and over again.

But by all means, let us harken back to the sentence you used to close the original post with:

"And perhaps that gets to the crux of it; their behavior, the obviousness of craft or the denial of it, is as damn insulting to me as someone here, having just bought a camera, out looking for work as a wedding photographer."

So if there is a comprehension problem here Lew, well it's in writing comprehension on your end, not reading comprehension on mine. 

As for the rest, the solution is simple. Stop patronizing galleries that act that way. Problem solved, happy day, win win, synergy dance. I trust this means you will then cease and desist with all further bitching on both topics?

Lol.. no need to answer that one Lew. I think we both know how likely that is to happen.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 6, 2014)

Not that anyone cares, but here's my bottom line, then I'm out of this thread.
Lew, Much of your work is outstanding. IMO, National Geographic quality. Some I don't "get" or maybe it just isn't my taste, but a majority I truly enjoy viewing. My only thing is, you seem to have put yourself on a pedestal that's made for one, and you're on it.

A little modesty goes a long way. Done and done.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> It's usually from date of purchase, not shutter time. It's not based on experience or skill, of course.



Ok, so then I buy it, toss it in a drawer, come back 3 weeks later and Shablamo!  I'm an arteest!

Whacky.  Ok, so next important question.. how long to I have to be an artist before I can change my name to an unpronouncable symbol and then have everyone start referring to me as the artist formerly known as robbins?  Lol


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 6, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> > It's usually from date of purchase, not shutter time. It's not based on experience or skill, of course.
> ...



There's a bit of a process to the second part. First, you need to buy some horrible V-neck sweaters and turtlenecks. Then get some very pretentious glasses. At this point, refer to yourself only as "Rob," not anything else, no first name, nothing. Just... Rob. Then you have about a year to go and you create your symbol. Introduce your symbol to your public, then wait another year and change your name to it. You will reach your final form when you've changed your name back.

Edit: I forgot the fancy facial hair and not-unique-but-close-enough hat.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Your reading comprehension suffers greatly in the face of your urgent desire to appear both witty.



"Both witty"?

"Both witty" and... what??

If you're going to slam someone for not being witty, you shouldn't be not witty when you do it...


----------



## webestang64 (Mar 6, 2014)

Artist.......5% Talent.....95% BS.

Craftsman....95% Talent.....5% BS.


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 6, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> how long to I have to be an artist before I can change my name to an unpronouncable symbol and then have everyone start referring to me as the artist formerly known as robbins? Lol



When you can drive a Little Red Corvette in the Purple Rain.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 6, 2014)

webestang64 said:


> Artist.......5% Talent.....95% BS.
> 
> Craftsman....95% Talent.....5% BS.


Art Critic.............100% BS


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> Not that anyone cares, but here's my bottom line, then I'm out of this thread.
> Lew, Much of your work is outstanding. IMO, National Geographic quality. Some I don't "get" or maybe it just isn't my taste, but a majority I truly enjoy viewing. My only thing is, you seem to have put yourself on a pedestal that's made for one, and you're on it.
> 
> A little modesty goes a long way. Done and done.



******Warning: the following posting might be interpreted as a blatant attempt to appear witty*****

I do care Rick.  I care very deeply, in fact so much so that I am currently involved in crafting a fiendishly clever trap with which to lure you back into the thread.  It involves bacon, a wooden box, a stick, a length of string and a rocket with the word Acme painted prominently on the side.

Lol

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > minicoop1985 said:
> ...



Ok, so the sweaters... purple only?  Not that I mind purple but it really doesn't make my eyes "pop"

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > how long to I have to be an artist before I can change my name to an unpronouncable symbol and then have everyone start referring to me as the artist formerly known as robbins? Lol
> ...



So forget investing in gold as a hedge against inflation and start buying cocaine instead?  Lol

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 6, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



Purple argyle with black turtleneck underneath. In summer. Nobody cares if you're warm. You suffer for your art.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > minicoop1985 said:
> ...



Umm... does this thread count?   Lol

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 6, 2014)

HA! Ahem. *inaudible noises* Yes. Indeed. Quite.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 6, 2014)

i dont know. i asked a business owner today if he needed product photos. Trying to make beer money ya know. He said they didn't they already had too many photos. Apparently they take their own product photos. 
'i dunno. i will never be a artist or a pro i cant even make beer money taking photos of trinkets.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> i dont know. i asked a business owner today if he needed product photos. Trying to make beer money ya know. He said they didn't they already had too many photos.



The trick is getting him to realize, despite the fact that they have product photos already, that they need yours...


----------



## bribrius (Mar 6, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > i dont know. i asked a business owner today if he needed product photos. Trying to make beer money ya know. He said they didn't they already had too many photos.
> ...


would be nice. And its a large gun dealer with a website. Gun dealer. No. im not making it up. Gun photos.


----------



## timor (Mar 6, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Oh, I forgot ...
> 
> A thread with labeling of other individuals and ascribing characteristics to them based upon overgeneralization. [check]
> 
> 7 pages...


That's it, the steam is released. With 105 likes (more ?) and 174 responses discussion petered out. 
Conclusions ?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 6, 2014)

yeah, it was a total waste of time. entire thread


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 6, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Well, I guess I'll have to take your word on that.

'Cause, you know, we won't be havin' none of that here!


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 6, 2014)

I tried persuading a local consignment shop that they needed my services. The truth is, they need someone's, and I happened to be there. The product photos they post are absolutely HORRIBLE. I mean half of them aren't in focus. I told them that their products online would command a LOT more attention if they were given a good professional product photo treatment, even told them the stories of some of the things I've sold, showed them samples that they agreed were much better, and they promptly told me "Photos don't matter. That's not what sells things." To which I replied oh wait I didn't have a comeback for that one.


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> ratssass said:
> 
> 
> > _*NEWSFLASH............*_Lew is angry all the time,and that ok.
> ...



Too cool Lew, what I like about typing at you, you tell like you see it, no bull crap. Though I don't always agree with you point of view I always appreciate your opinion. Being a young (based on perspective) man with a camera, you half always given solid perspective.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 6, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> I tried persuading a local consignment shop that they needed my services. The truth is, they need someone's, and I happened to be there. The product photos they post are absolutely HORRIBLE. I mean half of them aren't in focus. I told them that their products online would command a LOT more attention if they were given a good professional product photo treatment, even told them the stories of some of the things I've sold, showed them samples that they agreed were much better, and they promptly told me "Photos don't matter. That's not what sells things." To which I replied oh wait I didn't have a comeback for that one.



Easy enough, issue them a challenge.  Have them put up one ad of a product with their photo, and another of the exact same product with one of your photo's, and see which one sells faster and for more money.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 6, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I forgot ...
> ...



No.

My point is that you, of all people, should know full well that threads like this are unconstructive and lead to infighting and just all around negativity.

I'll ignore the asshat thing. Really, Lew.


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 6, 2014)

Very well stated Kathy. I'm a Motion picture technician and machinery operator (retired), made my living knowing where and how to set the stand and the diffusion, 20+ years of doing this taught me nothing about using light. Spent the last three days taking photos with my best friend Micheal, he's teaching me how to use light. I am a technician behind the camera, get the settings right, shoot away and everything will fall into place. No artistry there on my part, but every now and then...


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 6, 2014)

Lew, I hate to say it but I've become a camera operator.


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 6, 2014)

At the end of the day... I am an old dog trying to learn New Tricks.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 6, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> ...and they promptly told me "Photos don't matter. That's not what sells things." To which I replied oh wait I didn't have a comeback for that one.



Oh, man, that's an easy one.

If photos didn't matter, they wouldn't have them, bad or not...


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 6, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> > ...and they promptly told me "Photos don't matter. That's not what sells things." To which I replied oh wait I didn't have a comeback for that one.
> ...



I'm stealing that next time I'm in there and the topic comes up.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 6, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> > I tried persuading a local consignment shop that they needed my services. The truth is, they need someone's, and I happened to be there. The product photos they post are absolutely HORRIBLE. I mean half of them aren't in focus. I told them that their products online would command a LOT more attention if they were given a good professional product photo treatment, even told them the stories of some of the things I've sold, showed them samples that they agreed were much better, and they promptly told me "Photos don't matter. That's not what sells things." To which I replied oh wait I didn't have a comeback for that one.
> ...



If the "Well, if photos don't matter, why have one?" question doesn't work, I'll play this card next. I don't need to do it, I'd just like to for the experience. And beer money. And maybe film money. Or bacon.


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 6, 2014)

here's my photo...


300mm 25 feet away. I am a god with that lens!


----------



## timor (Mar 7, 2014)

Newtricks said:


> here's my photo...
> 
> View attachment 68162300mm 25 feet away. I am a god with that lens!


Lights still sucks.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 7, 2014)

Newtricks said:


> here's my photo...
> 
> 300mm 25 feet away. I am a god with that lens!




Umm.. just curious, did you crop out the little sign he was holding with all the numbers on it?  Lol


----------



## timor (Mar 7, 2014)

manaheim said:


> My point is that you, of all people, should know full well that threads like this are unconstructive and lead to infighting and just all around negativity..



For a few pages it was a good discussion. Don't blame Lew for behavior of others. This is a forum,right place for intense exchange of opinion. It's not Lew fault, that some are forgetting the direction. It started right, ended in petty bickering. There is an ancient Greek's maxim: be silent or speak thinks better, than silence. Some just want to speak.


----------



## timor (Mar 7, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Newtricks said:
> 
> 
> > here's my photo...
> ...


Here you go. Yup, wrong subforum to get c&c.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Mar 7, 2014)

Lew, there is art in anything that requires judgment. If there was no art in photography then one photo would be as good as the next. 
.


----------

