# Overrated Photographers... and not just famous ones.



## Ccauceg

So I am not trying to be an A**hole or anything but this has been bothering me.

I was looking through photo blogs and came across this Rachel Hulin | Art

I then was looking through these photos and almost immediately thinking the poor effort put in almost all of them, 90% of them were snap shots. Basically I didn't think any of them were good at all.

For example Rachel Hulin | Art | Hidden House (you cant be searious, really?).

I then look at her info and saw that her work as been shown in 5 galleries. Why would anyone want to showcase this stuff in their gallery? Let alone 4 others! If this is the kind of work that is being showcased and displayed as professional to the general public, no wonder the medium is considered "easy" by non photographers.

Anyone have any thoughts on this, or feel the same way I do?


----------



## Iron Flatline

Thomas Struth


----------



## Derrel

"90% of them were snap shots"

Nice try, but you'll need to do better if you wish to become an art critic. That's a tired old slam, and actually quite inappropriate. She's working in a genre that requires an educated viewer who has a background in art.


----------



## lamergod

I agree with you.Some photographers are just overrated.
One thing that is worth commending is that she kept the exposure well.
In another forum,a photographer who is very good,you can see it here Flickr: night86mare's Photostream

But when he posted a picture of a sunset that was just like any beginners shot,usually if a newbie posted it,people will say that oh,your exposure is wrong,your composition is bad and all that,but all everyone said was,it's a safe shot.I was like WTF!?!His shot is as rubbish as some newbies and all you say is a safe shot?


----------



## jackieclayton

ya i agree with lamergod, the exposure is nice on most of them.  I'm not a fan of Hidden House either, lol... or Hill House... the blur hurts my eyes, its crooked, and its ugly... or Xmas House... looks like a kid took it without looking through the viewfinder... lol...sorry.  I agree on your wording of "snapshot"  she truly takes pics of random things... like her picture entitled "gold sponge."  Not to mention a lot of them are grainy as hell ("New Years").  And sorry, "Sara and Sequin Light" looks like a bad grainy cell phone shot.   I'm not a fan

Her commerce work is pretty nice, i can see them for ads and stuff.  Not liking the art sets though

Derrel, please explain the education and need for a background in art to like these pictures... i'm not trying to be a smartass, i just really want to know what the photography community would find interesting in her work? Perhaps i can take correctly exposed crooked and grainy pictures of my 7up can sitting right here and get in a gallery.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

In this case I quite agree but you have to keep in mind that art is a very subjective thing. I love Yoko Ono's work. Do you know how few of us there are that do?    And I can't agree that "90% of them were snapshots." The exposures, if nothing else, are very good. Not something you find in a collection of snapshots.



Derrel said:


> Nice try, but you'll need to do better if you wish to become an art critic. That's a tired old slam, and actually quite inappropriate. She's working in a genre that requires an educated viewer who has a background in art.



Not every one wants to be a critic but that doesn't mean someone can't say how they feel about a piece of art. Also, requiring someone to be a critic to give his view of things is pretty elitist and is a big part of why so few people actually go to galleries. Not to mention that I think most critics are useless artists rejects. The only ones I've ever liked were actually full fledge artists themselves.


----------



## manaheim

I thought a number of them were at least interesting.

They're not snapshots, though. She's doing "something" with most, if not all, of them. A couple I don't quite get what she's doing myself, but most I can at least see it... even if it doesn't appeal to me.

As Derrel said... I think it takes a bit more knowledge to see what she's up to.

EDIT: And btw... who cares?  Her being acknowledged and whether or not she is 'worthy' is not important... unless you are taking it personally and saying "If her, then why not me?", at which point... well...


----------



## kundalini

Although I wasn't all that impressed with her outdoor shots so much, I felt her interior shots were very good.  The use of lighting and geometry really got you to focus on the subject.  There was also a good smattering of using texture and color to bring the viewer into the image.  IMO, these were not snapshots, but well thought out and executed on the most part.


----------



## usayit

One of the goals of art is to capture the eye of the beholder and invoke some sort of reaction.  Is it not? 

If so, then shouldn't this be true regardless of the beholder's background; art educated or not?


Personally, no photographer comes to mind at the moment.  Many have a series of wonderful photos but also have series that make me say "wtf?"   Bruce Gilden comes to mind.   I like some of his work but his photos of people's "deer caught in headlights" surprised look as he shoves a flash in their face doesn't do anything for me.

[EDIT]
Who is that photographer that takes pictures of other pictures?  I think he/she took photos of billboards and such.. then sold them as art...


----------



## lamergod

Photography is changing .From the time of HCB,Ansel Adams and all that,their picture all had a story.But now,when you look at landscapes,you just see a picture of a beautiful landscape and nothing else.Even in street,I find that people are just taking picture of other people walking on the street.Whats so nice about it?It seems to me like voyeur.


----------



## gsgary

usayit said:


> One of the goals of art is to capture the eye of the beholder and invoke some sort of reaction.  Is it not?
> 
> If so, then shouldn't this be true regardless of the beholder's background; art educated or not?
> 
> 
> Personally, no photographer comes to mind at the moment.  Many have a series of wonderful photos but also have series that make me say "wtf?"   Bruce Gilden comes to mind.   I like some of his work but his photos of people's "deer caught in headlights" surprised look as he shoves a flash in their face doesn't do anything for me.
> 
> [EDIT]
> Who is that photographer that takes pictures of other pictures?  I think he/she took photos of billboards and such.. then sold them as art...




I think the opposite and the Bruce Gilden street stuff is class


----------



## usayit

gsgary said:


> I think the opposite and the Bruce Gilden street stuff is class



Oh certainly....  some of his work is A+.  Don't get me wrong, I like his work.

There are a few series that just seem like a lot of people surprised that some big dude is shoving a flash in their face.  Unlike his other series, they lack "emotion" or as another magnum photographer would put it "the moment".


----------



## Iron Flatline

Did I mention Thomas Struth?


----------



## gsgary

usayit said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the opposite and the Bruce Gilden street stuff is class
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh certainly....  some of his work is A+.  Don't get me wrong, I like his work.
> 
> There are a few series that just seem like a lot of people surprised that some big dude is shoving a flash in their face.  Unlike his other series, they lack "emotion" or as another magnum photographer would put it "the moment".
Click to expand...

 

HCB is my all time  favourite photographer, i think i have all of his books


----------



## Chris of Arabia

I wouldn't say all of her stuff appealed to me, but there was quite a lot of stuff I found thought provoking. I do think I saw something that would be worthy of a 'Blurry Cat' award in there though...


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Chris of Arabia said:


> I wouldn't say all of her stuff appealed to me, but there was quite a lot of stuff I found thought provoking. I do think I saw something that would be worthy of a 'Blurry Cat' award in there though...



:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## keith foster

Chris of Arabia said:


> I wouldn't say all of her stuff appealed to me, but there was quite a lot of stuff I found thought provoking. I do think I saw something that would be worthy of a 'Blurry Cat' award in there though...



:thumbup:  "Blurry Cat, the Alphabet Series."


----------



## willli

:er: Poor girl she's been F*&^


----------



## Ccauceg

Derrel said:


> "90% of them were snap shots"
> 
> Nice try, but you'll need to do better if you wish to become an art critic. That's a tired old slam, and actually quite inappropriate. She's working in a genre that requires an educated viewer who has a background in art.



That was not a critique it was my personal opinion, if you like her work, thats great I just want to express my opinion and compare it with others.


----------



## Ccauceg

manaheim said:


> I thought a number of them were at least interesting.
> 
> They're not snapshots, though. She's doing "something" with most, if not all, of them. A couple I don't quite get what she's doing myself, but most I can at least see it... even if it doesn't appeal to me.
> 
> As Derrel said... I think it takes a bit more knowledge to see what she's up to.
> 
> EDIT: And btw... who cares?  Her being acknowledged and whether or not she is 'worthy' is not important... unless you are taking it personally and saying "If her, then why not me?", at which point... well...



I see your point, it could be that its not my taste at all. (And ok, maybe I am a little jealous). However im pretty sure I dont need to go to art school to tell this took very little time http://rachelhulin.com/new-years/01



Derrel said:


> Nice try, but you'll need to do better if you wish to become an art critic. That's a tired old slam, and actually quite inappropriate. She's working in a genre that requires an educated viewer who has a background in art.



I do understand what she was trying to achieve with most of her photos which was strong shape arrangements and geometry I just didn't think she was successful. Ive been into photography long enough to know how much effort was put into a photo. Also I will agree with the above posters, her exposures are really good with a nice dynamic range, i give her credit there.


----------



## skieur

I would agree with your first post ccauceg.  One basis of artistic composition is a centre of interest and in the case of photography a centre of interest with some visual impact.  I do not see that in her work.  Moreover busy backgrounds with conflicting articles, bright areas, and shapes distracts the eye of the viewer.  Colour and lighting as well as camera angle could also be improved.

Basically I do not see any technical and artistic quality that would qualify this as much more than snapshots and I do have the requisite background that Derrel thinks is necessary.

skieur


----------



## c.cloudwalker

skieur said:


> One basis of artistic composition is a centre of interest and in the case of photography a centre of interest with some visual impact.



Yes, but sometimes (oftentimes? 50/50? ) the entire image is the center of interest and there is nothing wrong with that.

Also, a busy background behind a busy foreground can be a good thing when the photog does wish you to spend some time looking, does not wish his/her intention to be obvious... :er:

One thing in art that is sure is that we will never really know what the artist had in mind when he/she created the piece unless we were told directly by the artist. And that is only if assuming that the artist knows. I personally have some works that are very deliberate, planified, etc and I have some work that is purely instinct driven. With those pieces, you may actually know more about their meaning than I do. But then again, you could be totally wrong.

I usually prefer to just like a piece or not. And to be honest, just explaining why I like this and not that can sometimes be a problem. Explaining a gut feeling is never easy but you know it is right. For you, at least.


----------



## icassell

This post made me think of this for some reason:

Pearls Before Breakfast - washingtonpost.com


----------



## Iron Flatline

*ahem*

Thomas Struth

blows big chunks


----------



## Ccauceg

Iron Flatline said:


> *ahem*
> 
> Thomas Struth
> 
> blows big chunks


I was just looking through his stuff, i dont know how famous he is, but if he has been showcased I cant believe he made it that far with that kind of work. 

For the record I may sound very negative on my post of other photographers,it's not that I hate all other photographers in fact I like a lot of peoples work and I get inspired easily. Its just when I see poor quality produced by photographers who go that far in their artistic career I have to question it.


----------



## icassell

"Tripods are no longer required, and actually often degrade sharpness, because shutter speeds have climbed and IS and VR lenses reduced the need for slower speeds."

-Ken Rockwell


Oy!


----------



## Ccauceg

icassell said:


> "Tripods are no longer required, and actually often degrade sharpness, because shutter speeds have climbed and IS and VR lenses reduced the need for slower speeds."
> 
> -Ken Rockwell
> 
> 
> Oy!



Haha Dont ask me, i thought it was hilarious.


----------



## jackieclayton

Chris of Arabia said:


> I wouldn't say all of her stuff appealed to me, but there was quite a lot of stuff I found thought provoking. I do think I saw something that would be worthy of a 'Blurry Cat' award in there though...



lol, i wanted to say it but didn't want to start up the "S in the Blurry Cat" all over again...    see, all of you guys that hated the "Blurry Cat" will soon see it in New York Art Galleries... me thinks Rialto was on to something as far as this new trend in photography...


----------



## jackieclayton

Ccauceg said:


> icassell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tripods are no longer required, and actually often degrade sharpness, because shutter speeds have climbed and IS and VR lenses reduced the need for slower speeds."
> 
> -Ken Rockwell
> 
> 
> Oy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha Dont ask me, i thought it was hilarious.
Click to expand...


lol, thanks for sharing this! i saw your sig on another post and thought it was funny so i read the linked article... all i can say is WOW lol  :lmao::lmao::lmao:  Oh Ken Rockwell..... :hail:


----------



## jackieclayton

icassell said:


> This post made me think of this for some reason:
> 
> Pearls Before Breakfast - washingtonpost.com



:thumbup: Interesting read!  thanks for sharing!!  quote from the article: _IF A GREAT MUSICIAN PLAYS GREAT MUSIC BUT NO ONE HEARS . . . WAS HE REALLY ANY GOOD?_

Crazy to think that this guy is getting so much hype when there are some really good artists out there that no one hears...:  Larry Platt - Memorable auditions - American Idol


----------



## skieur

c.cloudwalker said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> One basis of artistic composition is a centre of interest and in the case of photography a centre of interest with some visual impact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but sometimes (oftentimes? 50/50? ) the entire image is the center of interest and there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Also, a busy background behind a busy foreground can be a good thing when the photog does wish you to spend some time looking, does not wish his/her intention to be obvious... :er:
> 
> One thing in art that is sure is that we will never really know what the artist had in mind when he/she created the piece unless we were told directly by the artist. And that is only if assuming that the artist knows. I personally have some works that are very deliberate, planified, etc and I have some work that is purely instinct driven. With those pieces, you may actually know more about their meaning than I do. But then again, you could be totally wrong.
> 
> I usually prefer to just like a piece or not. And to be honest, just explaining why I like this and not that can sometimes be a problem. Explaining a gut feeling is never easy but you know it is right. For you, at least.
Click to expand...

 
Your spin is not accepted in my environment and I have written art curriculum for the Ministry of Education (provincial government), taught Art, and taught Photography. (Just for Derrel and his required backgrounds )

The entire image is never the centre of interest and as a matter of fact one of the basics of artistic photography is to isolate and draw attention to a centre of interest within an image.  How well, a photographer accomplishes this determines his/her skill and artistry.

The wishes or intentions of the photographer by the way are totally irrelevant.  A photograph MUST stand on its own.  It is VIEWERS who must be shown what the intention of the photgrapher is and MORE IMPORTANT that it has been achieved, by solely looking at the photo.
Otherwise the photographer has FAILED in his/her efforts and intentions.

I suggest you look at the principles or elements of design in art which provide the basis for composition in the field of photography.

skieur


----------



## Ccauceg

skieur said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> One basis of artistic composition is a centre of interest and in the case of photography a centre of interest with some visual impact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but sometimes (oftentimes? 50/50? ) the entire image is the center of interest and there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Also, a busy background behind a busy foreground can be a good thing when the photog does wish you to spend some time looking, does not wish his/her intention to be obvious... :er:
> 
> One thing in art that is sure is that we will never really know what the artist had in mind when he/she created the piece unless we were told directly by the artist. And that is only if assuming that the artist knows. I personally have some works that are very deliberate, planified, etc and I have some work that is purely instinct driven. With those pieces, you may actually know more about their meaning than I do. But then again, you could be totally wrong.
> 
> I usually prefer to just like a piece or not. And to be honest, just explaining why I like this and not that can sometimes be a problem. Explaining a gut feeling is never easy but you know it is right. For you, at least.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your spin is not accepted in my environment and I have written art curriculum for the Ministry of Education (provincial government), taught Art, and taught Photography. (Just for Derrel and his required backgrounds )
> 
> The entire image is never the centre of interest and as a matter of fact one of the basics of artistic photography is to isolate and draw attention to a centre of interest within an image.  How well, a photographer accomplishes this determines his/her skill and artistry.
> 
> The wishes or intentions of the photographer by the way are totally irrelevant.  A photograph MUST stand on its own.  It is VIEWERS who must be shown what the intention of the photgrapher is and MORE IMPORTANT that it has been achieved, by solely looking at the photo.
> Otherwise the photographer has FAILED in his/her efforts and intentions.
> 
> I suggest you look at the principles or elements of design in art which provide the basis for composition in the field of photography.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


This is exactly how I feel the ideal photograph should be, its just that I could not put it in words, You nailed it skieur.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

skieur said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> One basis of artistic composition is a centre of interest and in the case of photography a centre of interest with some visual impact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but sometimes (oftentimes? 50/50? ) the entire image is the center of interest and there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Also, a busy background behind a busy foreground can be a good thing when the photog does wish you to spend some time looking, does not wish his/her intention to be obvious... :er:
> 
> One thing in art that is sure is that we will never really know what the artist had in mind when he/she created the piece unless we were told directly by the artist. And that is only if assuming that the artist knows. I personally have some works that are very deliberate, planified, etc and I have some work that is purely instinct driven. With those pieces, you may actually know more about their meaning than I do. But then again, you could be totally wrong.
> 
> I usually prefer to just like a piece or not. And to be honest, just explaining why I like this and not that can sometimes be a problem. Explaining a gut feeling is never easy but you know it is right. For you, at least.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your spin is not accepted in my environment and I have written art curriculum for the Ministry of Education (provincial government), taught Art, and taught Photography. (Just for Derrel and his required backgrounds )
> 
> The entire image is never the centre of interest and as a matter of fact one of the basics of artistic photography is to isolate and draw attention to a centre of interest within an image.  How well, a photographer accomplishes this determines his/her skill and artistry.
> 
> The wishes or intentions of the photographer by the way are totally irrelevant.  A photograph MUST stand on its own.  It is VIEWERS who must be shown what the intention of the photgrapher is and MORE IMPORTANT that it has been achieved, by solely looking at the photo.
> Otherwise the photographer has FAILED in his/her efforts and intentions.
> 
> I suggest you look at the principles or elements of design in art which provide the basis for composition in the field of photography.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


Well, I have taught art and I have taught photography and I still do and all I can say in response to your post is THANK GOD I don't deal with the government.

"The wishes or intentions of the photographer by the way are totally irrelevant." Really?  THANK GOD I don't deal with the government. 

"A photograph MUST stand on its own."  I absolutely agree.

"It is VIEWERS who must be shown what the intention of the photgrapher is and MORE IMPORTANT that it has been achieved, by solely looking at the photo." Fine but does that mean we are to bring everything to the lowest common denominator? Sorry, I don't agree. Then again I don't work for the government.


----------



## Ccauceg

> "It is VIEWERS who must be shown what the intention of the photgrapher is and MORE IMPORTANT that it has been achieved, by solely looking at the photo." Fine but does that mean we are to bring everything to the lowest common denominator? Sorry, I don't agree. Then again I don't work for the government.


You don't have to resort the lowest common denominator to convey a strong message. This I think, is the hardest part about photography, which is producing an image that stands on its own without having to resort to that lowest common denominator. Creating something with your own style and trying to produce a impactful message is something that the majority of photographers fail at doing.


----------



## dhilberg

Generally if there's a piece of artwork that I "don't get" I take the less arrogant approach and assume the artist knows something I don't. In other words, if I don't get it it's because I don't know any better. Sometimes meanings and intentions are very subtle. Art doesn't have to scream "meaning." Either you get it or you don't, and if you don't generally some discussion of the work with other people can help clear the fog.

As it may take some time to produce a piece of artwork, it may also take some time to truly understand it.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

dhilberg said:


> As it may take some time to produce a piece of artwork, it may also take some time to truly understand it.



What if, as I mentioned a few times, the artist doesn't know what it means?


----------



## Ccauceg

dhilberg said:


> Generally if there's a piece of artwork that I "don't get" I take the less arrogant approach and assume the artist knows something I don't. In other words, if I don't get it it's because I don't know any better. Sometimes meanings and intentions are very subtle. Art doesn't have to scream "meaning." Either you get it or you don't, and if you don't generally some discussion of the work with other people can help clear the fog.
> 
> As it may take some time to produce a piece of artwork, it may also take some time to truly understand it.



I completely agree with you that a "meaning" does not have to be some grand scale idea that shows the horrors/emotions/actions/etc of humanity. However, If the artist is trying to produce an image that only he/she understands what is the point of showcasing it to the general public?


----------



## usayit

art has rules or guidelines?


----------



## Joves

Iron Flatline said:


> *ahem*
> 
> Thomas Struth
> 
> blows big chunks


 Yeah I googled him and thought the OPs rant is misplaced. Her shots are by far better. The shots of the woods look like many of my shots I rejected. Now I guess I should pull them back up and I could get a show, after seeing his work.


----------



## Ccauceg

Joves said:


> Iron Flatline said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> Thomas Struth
> 
> blows big chunks
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I googled him and thought the OPs rant is misplaced. Her shots are by far better. The shots of the woods look like many of my shots I rejected. Now I guess I should pull them back up and I could get a show, after seeing his work.
Click to expand...


Hers were for sure way way better than Thomas Struth, but I didn't think hers were worthy of gallery display either, the only thing she has going for her is good exposures.


----------



## Garbz

Art is subjective. We have hanging in the Queensland Art Gallery a painting that is completely crap dark shade of black, nothing more, just a colour. There was a 3 paragraph blurb on how the artist was going through a period of dark thoughts, and couldn't get his head straight, and was changing the colour constantly layering colour on colour until all the colours blended together in one black shade. Then it went on to say how many artists go through a period like this and this artist managed to get these thoughts onto the canvas.

The entire time I was thinking, it's a ****ing black sqaure. At least if he threw up on it it would have some colour. It's not art. It's what you get when you accidentally spill paint on a canvas, and why the heck was it hanging in a gallery and what lonely idiot had nothing better to do than write 3 paragraphs about a black square. 

That's the saddest part of all, art critics sometimes put more effort into their writing than the artist themselves. Derrel you're right in saying "snapshots" is a cheap way of not understanding what was going through the artists head, but this is all subjectual. I look at that image and think, I had an image just like that, and deleted it just after I coped it off my camera because it really was just a crap snapshot. 

Someone somewhere though clearly likes what in my opinion is mediocre crap... who knew. But just like one man's black square is another man's master piece, and one man's snapshot is another's framed print on the wall.


----------



## skieur

Ccauceg said:


> "It is VIEWERS who must be shown what the intention of the photgrapher is and MORE IMPORTANT that it has been achieved, by solely looking at the photo." Fine but does that mean we are to bring everything to the lowest common denominator? Sorry, I don't agree. Then again I don't work for the government.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to resort the lowest common denominator to convey a strong message. This I think, is the hardest part about photography, which is producing an image that stands on its own without having to resort to that lowest common denominator. Creating something with your own style and trying to produce a impactful message is something that the majority of photographers fail at doing.
Click to expand...

 
I totally agree with Ccauceg and by the way, the government came to me with an offer.  I had total freedom to write what I wished, and I wrote what I believe based on a half century of photographic experience.  I doubt that you can match my background or experience.

skieur


----------



## djacobox372

Derrel said:


> "90% of them were snap shots"
> 
> Nice try, but you'll need to do better if you wish to become an art critic. That's a tired old slam, and actually quite inappropriate. She's working in a genre that requires an educated viewer who has a background in art.



hmmmm i dont know if i should agree or disagree with this statement, while i 100% disagree with the ts opinon on this particular photographer, i also think its pompus to inflate the opinion of the " educated" or " experienced."


----------



## Joves

djacobox372 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "90% of them were snap shots"
> 
> Nice try, but you'll need to do better if you wish to become an art critic. That's a tired old slam, and actually quite inappropriate. She's working in a genre that requires an educated viewer who has a background in art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmmm i dont know if i should agree or disagree with this statement, while i 100% disagree with the ts opinon on this particular photographer, i also think its pompus to inflate the opinion of the " educated" or " experienced."
Click to expand...

 Exactly!


----------



## John de Michele

I thought the pictures were pretty reasonable.  I didn't find any of them to be 'snapshots', as if that were some scarlet letter.

John.


----------



## jackieclayton

c.cloudwalker said:


> dhilberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it may take some time to produce a piece of artwork, it may also take some time to truly understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if, as I mentioned a few times, the artist doesn't know what it means?
Click to expand...


if it doesn't have a meaning, is it worth anything?  If I took some random picture and submitted it to a contest and someone asked me what it meant and I said "i dunno..."  I doubt the viewer is going to respect it either.  Some people think Jackson Pollock's art is just some paint splattered, but to him it was emotion, anger, depression, and feeling.  I mean, I could go splatter some paint on a canvas but it wouldn't mean crap to anyone because I had no purpose doing it... it conveys no personal message... and I think thats the most important thing an artist needs... an inspiration and a purpose.  then you hone in on technique and style and all the other things that will win an award one day...


----------



## John de Michele

jackieclayton said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dhilberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it may take some time to produce a piece of artwork, it may also take some time to truly understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if, as I mentioned a few times, the artist doesn't know what it means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it doesn't have a meaning, is it worth anything?  If I took some random picture and submitted it to a contest and someone asked me what it meant and I said "i dunno..."  I doubt the viewer is going to respect it either.  Some people think Jackson Pollock's art is just some paint splattered, but to him it was emotion, anger, depression, and feeling.  I mean, I could go splatter some paint on a canvas but it wouldn't mean crap to anyone because I had no purpose doing it... it conveys no personal message... and I think thats the most important thing an artist needs... an inspiration and a purpose.  then you hone in on technique and style and all the other things that will win an award one day...
Click to expand...


Why assume that the photographer's/artist's meaning is the only possible meaning?  If you take a picture that means one thing to you, and a person viewing it has a totally different interpretation, is that interpretation any less valid than yours?  Maybe trying to get the viewer to come up with their own meaning *is* the purpose.

John.


----------



## jackieclayton

John de Michele said:


> Why assume that the photographer's/artist's meaning is the only possible meaning?  If you take a picture that means one thing to you, and a person viewing it has a totally different interpretation, is that interpretation any less valid than yours?  Maybe trying to get the viewer to come up with their own meaning *is* the purpose.
> 
> John.



ok, i can see that... that is a good point.  Thats why some art is really special to some people because of a feeling they personally get from it, even if its something other than the artist intended.  I guess I was looking at that statment from the perspective that there is no rhyme or reason the artist took a picture and doesn't know what it means.  Thats pointless to me, "art" should be special to the photographer, even if me being the viewer doesn't really like it.   I can go outside right now and take a picture of some palm trees blowing in the wind... and there's no purpose that I took it, just shot it b/c it looked neat... and then a group of hippie pot smokers saw it and got like some crazy interpretation that its a portrait of God or something and wanted to put it in a gallery... would you call the picture I took a work of art or a peice of crap that other people took too seriously?  It had no purpose to me when I took it and I have no meaning behind it... but others loved it.... if the artist doesn't have emotion behind it, I personally would have a hard time feeling an ounce of passion for it...


----------



## John de Michele

jackieclayton said:


> ok, i can see that... that is a good point.  Thats why some art is really special to some people because of a feeling they personally get from it, even if its something other than the artist intended.  I guess I was looking at that statment from the perspective that there is no rhyme or reason the artist took a picture and doesn't know what it means.  Thats pointless to me, "art" should be special to the photographer, even if me being the viewer doesn't really like it.   I can go outside right now and take a picture of some palm trees blowing in the wind... and there's no purpose that I took it, just shot it b/c it looked neat... and then a group of hippie pot smokers saw it and got like some crazy interpretation that its a portrait of God or something and wanted to put it in a gallery... would you call the picture I took a work of art or a peice of crap that other people took too seriously?  It had no purpose to me when I took it and I have no meaning behind it... but others loved it.... if the artist doesn't have emotion behind it, I personally would have a hard time feeling an ounce of passion for it...



It would depend on the mood I was in when I saw the picture.  If it invoked a mood or a feeling, or even just a stray fancy, then I would say that, yes, it is art, even if it doesn't move everyone.

John.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

jackieclayton said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dhilberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it may take some time to produce a piece of artwork, it may also take some time to truly understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if, as I mentioned a few times, the artist doesn't know what it means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it doesn't have a meaning, is it worth anything?  If I took some random picture and submitted it to a contest and someone asked me what it meant and I said "i dunno..."  I doubt the viewer is going to respect it either.  Some people think Jackson Pollock's art is just some paint splattered, but to him it was emotion, anger, depression, and feeling.  I mean, I could go splatter some paint on a canvas but it wouldn't mean crap to anyone because I had no purpose doing it... it conveys no personal message... and I think thats the most important thing an artist needs... an inspiration and a purpose.  then you hone in on technique and style and all the other things that will win an award one day...
Click to expand...


First I didn't say it had no meaning, I said that the artist does not always know what he/she means. Quite a difference.

Second, why does it have to have meaning? Can't you be happy just enjoying an image? I can. Sometimes I see things in somebody's work and sometimes I don't but I won't reject a work just because I don't see a meaning. If it's beautiful it's plenty good enough for me. I have told buyers of my work that the piece they were interested in had no meaning and it didn't keep them from buying 

Plus, as John de Michele says, how do you know the meaning you get from the work is the same as that of the artist if he had one?


----------



## c.cloudwalker

jackieclayton said:


> I can go outside right now and take a picture of some palm trees blowing in the wind... and there's no purpose that I took it, just shot it b/c it looked neat... and then a group of hippie pot smokers saw it and got like some crazy interpretation that its a portrait of God or something and wanted to put it in a gallery... would you call the picture I took a work of art or a peice of crap that other people took too seriously?  It had no purpose to me when I took it and I have no meaning behind it... but others loved it.... if the artist doesn't have emotion behind it, I personally would have a hard time feeling an ounce of passion for it...



If I felt that bad about one of my art works, I wouldn't let anybody hang it in a gallery


----------



## jackieclayton

c.cloudwalker said:


> If I felt that bad about one of my art works, I wouldn't let anybody hang it in a gallery



lol, well... if there is cash involved for some random snapshot I took when its hanging in a gallery,  I suppose I could _learn_ to appreciate it... lol!

you all make good points... there's a hypothetical situation to everything... i guess take each picture at face value and give it the benefit of the doubt that it's a work of art... you might love it, you might hate it... and move on to the next... :mrgreen:


----------



## Ccauceg

jackieclayton said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dhilberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it may take some time to produce a piece of artwork, it may also take some time to truly understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if, as I mentioned a few times, the artist doesn't know what it means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it doesn't have a meaning, is it worth anything?  If I took some random picture and submitted it to a contest and someone asked me what it meant and I said "i dunno..."  I doubt the viewer is going to respect it either.  Some people think Jackson Pollock's art is just some paint splattered, but to him it was emotion, anger, depression, and feeling.  I mean, I could go splatter some paint on a canvas but it wouldn't mean crap to anyone because I had no purpose doing it... it conveys no personal message... and I think thats the most important thing an artist needs... an inspiration and a purpose.  then you hone in on technique and style and all the other things that will win an award one day...
Click to expand...


I completely agree with this, the artist needs to deliver some idea/purpose/meaning to the viewer without having to be educated by them. The potency of the visual message to the viewer is determined by an artists skill in their medium. If the artist leaves the viewer being stumped and wondering why they created the piece of art in the first place the artist has failed IMO.

As I have stated in my previous post meaning does not have to be some grand question like "the meaning of life" or crap like that. Meaning can be as simple as a dog playing fetch, or an organized layout of lines in a scene. Meaning can even be a demonstration of the artists technical skill in his or her medium. In the end, it is up to the artists level of skill in their medium in how potent these meanings are delivered to the viewer.


----------



## Doonbury83

I enjoy Lamergod's link, it's definitely tight work. I dislike the work of Kristamas Klousch. A friend suggested I look at the "art" photography and linked me to her work. I don't find it new or riveting. It is extremely cliché. Looking at her flickr, someone called her a "Cindy Sherman whose read too much Poe." I agree. No intelligent use of lighting and what she does use is not well done - I'm unsure she understands light at all. No images other than herself, which is boring - the nude shots of her are less artistic and strike me as more of a narcissistic stance, in fact the entire body of work strikes me as narcissistic.  I've been told and from what I see, all the images are of her, which look heavily altered in photoshop and even then poorly rendered. I think some of them look like cell phone images as well, which causes me to wonder if she uses a camera at all. How can this qualify as photography and what makes this work any good? Personally, I dislike it and think it's frivolous.

As for the OP of this thread, I went to the Rachel Hulin link and  I think she's working with a lot of natural light - which can be tricky. Some shots are a hit, some a miss. The ones that are bad, are very bad. I find some of her stuff okay though. I wouldn't say she's fantastic.


----------



## Braineack

Didn't read thread, just hoping Terry Richardson was mentioned...


----------



## Scatterbrained

Well, it's a four year old thread, the images originally linked aren't even up anymore.


----------



## Overread

I think we might lay this one to rest.


----------

