# Scr3w the idea of taking pictures for profit



## The_Traveler (Nov 30, 2014)

Ursula K Le Guin's speech at National Book Awards: 'Books aren't just commodities' | Books | The Guardian

Ursula K Le Guin received a National Book Award and said this about writing but it applies equally well to photography.



> Right now, we need writers who know the difference between production of a market commodity and the practice of an art. Developing written material to suit sales strategies in order to maximise corporate profit and advertising revenue is not the same thing as responsible book publishing or authorship.
> ...............................
> Books aren’t just commodities; the profit motive is often in conflict with the aims of art. We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art.
> ..............................


----------



## JTPhotography (Nov 30, 2014)

I somewhat agree, but also think there is an apples/oranges aspect to this. I can write a book with a pen. I need thousands of dollars worth of gear to produce fine photographs.


----------



## runnah (Nov 30, 2014)

I could not agree more.



JTPhotography said:


> I somewhat agree, but also think there is an apples/oranges aspect to this. I can write a book with a pen. I need thousands of dollars worth of gear to produce fine photographs.



Problem isn't the folks with thousands of dollars worth of gear, it's the one who just got a DSLR from bobs box store and thinks that with some minimal training and a facebook page makes them a pro.

Not only that it's that people seem to think the only way to validate their purchase they have to make money. I've spent thousands on fishing gear and I don't feel the need to make money, I jus enjoy it.


----------



## qleak (Nov 30, 2014)

JTPhotography said:


> I somewhat agree, but also think there is an apples/oranges aspect to this. I can write a book with a pen. I need thousands of dollars worth of gear to produce fine photographs.



People spend years writing, drafting and finding a publisher for their novels. The labor translates into an initial investment that I think is quite higher than the cost of a studio.

So sure it's apples and oranges, but I think it's a smaller up front investment to become a photographer.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 30, 2014)

With the rise of self published ebooks writing even has the equivalent of the Facebook mini-session and a disk photographer!

You don't need 1000s of dollars worth of kit to make important photos, unless you're doing something specialized. Not every photo can be made with the phone you already have. Not every photo can be made with the $600 DSLR kit ($300 used off craigslist, perhaps). But a lot of them can be. You can make a lot of them with a shoebox, a pinhole, and $100 worth of chemistry and supplies.

What is needed, is vision and passion. If you have those and live in a western nation, the small amount of money required is a solvable problem and you'll solve it. Consider it the first test of your commitment.

Money, or the pursuit of same, gets in the way of passion and vision. Technical trivia get in the way of them. In fact, everything that is not vision and passion gets in the way of those.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 30, 2014)

Art reveals something of ourselves to ourselves.  Sometimes the revelation is uncomfortable.  Sometimes it opens up the eyes/heart/mind a little more.  Sometimes it hold up a mirror to our selves and our actions.  Sometimes it insults our sacred cows and belittles our idols, and pokes holes in our mythology.

Then there's the "art" that serves as propaganda, or supports an ideology, or feeds our less-than-honorable proclivities.  Sometimes it is decorative, or just "pretty".  People pay money for stuff that is pretty, doesn't assault their biases, or force them to see stuff they'd rather not see.  I totally get Ursula Le Guin's point between "art" as  a form of expression, and "art" as a means of making money.

Mind you, "art" doesn't have to be offensive or troubling to be art - it is sufficient for it to get us to see what we would otherwise not notice or pay attention to.  But in my opinion, it does have to touch the heart/brain/eye to have any hope of being considered "art".


----------



## Buckster (Nov 30, 2014)

I love her books.  The Earthsea series is one of my all-time favorites.

And while it's easy to agree with what she's saying here, "starving artist" is not as romantic a lifestyle as it may sound.

It's easy to make statements like hers if you're in her shoes.  She made her fortune in a time when she could afford to not deal with today's super-capitalistic culture of turning everything, including the arts, into commodities, or you can just GFY.  In her day (and many of us older folks) nearly everybody read books like crazy, one right after the other.  

The times have changed to one dominated by people who appear from their writing to be barely literate, with a reading attention span of about 140 characters.

no wut i mene?


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 30, 2014)

I think her point might be construed to include the idea that we'd be better off if artists in particular and people in general opted out of the 'let's turn everything in to cash as fast as possible' lifestyle.

I agree with her. I don't really see the path forward for society, but I'm working on it on a personal scale.


----------



## Overread (Nov 30, 2014)

The problem is unless your rich you have to earn money to survive - and if you want to dedicate yourself to a hobby or interest that takes a LOT of time. Throw in family and kids and a recession and you can quickly see that a lot of people want to turn a hobby into a profession because they might not have much else - or the job they have is quite dead-end (we have a lot of jobs today that directly go no-where - you can't work you way up). 

It's a sign of the times that people are rather desperate when they are looking to turn hobbies into money. 



On the lfipside never before has anywhere near the wealth of artistic freedom been possible in history. We can create what we want - we can find resources to help us create those creations and we can even publish and market our creations. 

I suspect part of her angle is trying to dissuade people from jumping into the "lets make money" pit too soon. Publish a halfdozen really bad first time novels and that's it you name is ruined for years - if not decades.


----------



## Warhorse (Nov 30, 2014)

She sounds like a GDC to me.


----------



## Didereaux (Nov 30, 2014)

JTPhotography said:


> I somewhat agree, but also think there is an apples/oranges aspect to this. I can write a book with a pen. I need thousands of dollars worth of gear to produce fine photographs.



You apply no logic to what you wrote.   In fact what you wrote left out intentionally, or unintentionally the wee little fact that te cost of even the finest photography setup is a tiny fraction of the cost to publish a book, add market it.  Your photographs cast you less than the ink necessary to write a page!  

But you are correct in one aspect by calling this an apples-oranges issue...just as graphic arts for billboards has the sole purpose of selling omething, so do photographs taken for the same purpose.   Cutting rock for tombstones, or table tops is not the work of a Rodin.    Can commercial work be 'Art', of course it can, especially in photography...think Avedon, Steichen, and others,  but the forum does not create the art...that is the sole realm of genius.

Thoughout history art, quality art, has always been in demand, and despite the mythos few talented artists starved from lack of opportunity.  If they starved it was generally because of political/societal pressures which made their offensive to the powerful.  But that is a digression from the issue of this thread.

A others have said already, you must produce that which is demand in order to acheve the freedom to produce that which you want.  Money buys you the time, and time is what eventually provides the recognition of your art.   But I repeat, it is not the cost to produce that determines the art...it is the talent of the artist.

Someone took some offense to LeGuin's saying that art could change society, she is correct.  If that were not so then despots, dictators and fascists of all sorts would not pay good money to produce propaganda!


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 30, 2014)

If you already have a computer that can generate documents in Microsoft Word format, you can write and publish a book through amazon for $0. Zip. Nada.

It takes only your time.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 30, 2014)

She sounds like a Game Developer's Conference?


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 30, 2014)

Overread said:


> The problem is unless your rich you have to earn money to survive - and if you want to dedicate yourself to a hobby or interest that takes a LOT of time. Throw in family and kids and a recession and you can quickly see that a lot of people want to turn a hobby into a profession because they might not have much else - or the job they have is quite dead-end (we have a lot of jobs today that directly go no-where - you can't work you way up).
> 
> It's a sign of the times that people are rather desperate when they are looking to turn hobbies into money.
> 
> ...



I think a lot of it comes my generations even further romanticization of the whimsical, starving, artist. However, being an artist is not easy, so people begin doing $50 mini-sessions because no one wants their photos of flowers and chit.

But they still want to claim the title of artist, because they don't want to feel like just another cog in the capitalist machine. In my eyes, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

There are a ton of photographers who truly are artists, but their images have...something extra...a soul, I guess is the best way I can describe it.

The people who focus almost solely on seasonal sessions with props and crap are nothing more than glorified Olan Mills photo factories.

I just feel like "real" art adds to the human experience instead of just existing to re-affirm that, yes, you can compose a photo well enough and you know your way around Photoshop. Great job, here's a cookie.


----------



## Designer (Nov 30, 2014)

As usual, the people who have the money make the rules, and if they don't know or don't care about the finer points of art, then they're not going to pay extra for it.  

I place the lion's share  of the blame for crappy "art" on the people who are perfectly willing to buy crappy art.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 30, 2014)

Why do so many people hate money?  We just celebrated the producer's holiday.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 30, 2014)

There are two ways in to photography as a profession. One is to learn how to create a certain kind of commodity photograph and then hanging out your shingle to do that. Now you're doing senior sessions or portraits or weddings or something and generating marketable photos that look a lot like all the rest. It's the nature, nay, the definition of commodity.

There's nothing wrong with that. Throughout modern history most people have made an honorable living manufacturing commodity objects.

The other way is to follow your muse. Screw money I'm making art that I love. Or trying to, anyways. Sometimes, not very often, that too turns into a living in one way or another.

Of course those are two ends of a spectrum.

Writing doesn't really have the first one. What it does have is plenty of people who claim to be the second one who are in fact trying madly to be the first one. There's no established system for grinding out commodity writing. At least not a widespread one. Wanna bee writers often seem to think there ought to be, since they lack the ability, or the passion, or the persistence, to do anything but grind out commodity text. And so they do that' and try to sell it as art.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 30, 2014)

JTPhotography said:


> I somewhat agree, but also think there is an apples/oranges aspect to this. I can write a book with a pen. I need thousands of dollars worth of gear to produce fine photographs.


I disagree ... especially for art. You can shoot film for $1000's less and after a scan, you're in the same place as if you shot digital.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 30, 2014)

I was interviewing Danielle Steel, and she hated writing her romance novels. She said anybody can write them, the publisher gives you a formula, an outline and you just fill in/out the formula. She said she was doing the romance thing in order to have the money to write what she wants.

I think what Ursula K Le Guin said is somewhat of an elitist statement. Yes, it would be great to be able to write only what you want ... but it is also nice to have three squares a day.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 30, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Why do so many people hate money?  We just celebrated the producers holiday.



Because the thought of it gives me ulcers.


----------



## AlanKlein (Nov 30, 2014)

Her basic premise is elitist and wrong, because who's going to decide what work reaches the level of art and what doesn't.  Her?  Furthermore, if you're producing art that no one is buying, how does that advance art?  No one knows about it.  It's locked up in the cellar with the artist who dies alone with it.  

Actually, the fact is that even if you take her at what she's saying, more art is being produced than ever before.  There are more writers and photographers who do not sell their work producing art in their mind's eye.  It's never sold.  So more art is being produce than ever.    We can argue about whether it's good or bad art, but that's a different thread.


----------



## runnah (Nov 30, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> There are two ways in to photography as a profession. One is to learn how to create a certain kind of commodity photograph and then hanging out your shingle to do that. Now you're doing senior sessions or portraits or weddings or something and generating marketable photos that look a lot like all the rest. It's the nature, nay, the definition of commodity.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with that. Throughout modern history most people have made an honorable living manufacturing commodity objects.
> 
> ...



Are you kidding? Stephen King would disagree. Plus all the other non fiction writers who make good money writing technical, scientific and medical articles. Not to mention those writers who are journalists.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 30, 2014)

"We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings."

Divine right kings ruled via subjugation -- much easier to successfully resist, and they were human.

Rule via assimilation ups the ante substantially.


----------



## Fred Berg (Nov 30, 2014)

JTPhotography said:


> I somewhat agree, but also think there is an apples/oranges aspect to this. I can write a book with a pen. I need thousands of dollars worth of gear to produce fine photographs.



I can imagine having funds to spend on expensive gear might help produce fine photographs, however, not being in such a financial position I am unable to put this to the test. I don't know whether or not any of my photos could be called fine, but my gear cost me considerably less than one thousand euros in total. Money isn't everything.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 30, 2014)

runnah said:


> Not only that it's that people seem to think the only way to validate their purchase they have to make money. I've spent thousands on fishing gear and I don't feel the need to make money, I jus enjoy it.



Totally perfectly right.
Leaving aside those persons who pursue photography as a business (which must be soul crushing), I think the trick is not to need validation.
And that's a difficult place to get to - and just as difficult to stay.
For several years I thought I was a failure because I didn't produce sell-able pictures.
Once I accepted that was not my direction, I still cared a lot about the compliments and acceptance by others.
The last couple of years, I have cared much more about my own satisfaction and not too much about what others say.
I've tried to accept that photography and life isn't a competition or at least it shouldn't be.


----------



## JTPhotography (Nov 30, 2014)

For the record, I am not a full time professional, I don't try very hard to make money with my photos, and I do so mostly because I am a gear junkie. I have a good job so I am lucky in that I can pretty much have all the gear I want. I shoot what I like, when I want, and I want to keep it that way. I feel for the people who try to make a full time living at as an artist of any kind, and certainly would never fault them for abandoning their values to increase profits.

I'm just saying that, all things being equal, photography is a much more expensive hobby than writing. And if you're doing it out of love and not profit, then yes, it is a hobby.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 30, 2014)

I disagree with "all you need is a pen and paper" to write a book. That's like saying all you need is a cardboard box, a pinhole and a sheet of film to take a picture. I think that no publisher will accept a hand written book, just like no art seller would accept a photo printed on copy paper, from an unknown artist.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 30, 2014)

As I've said repeatedly, you can publish on amazon for zero cost. You need to be able to generate a Word document.

You can probably write your book at the local public library using Google Documents. Literally zero cost. All you need is time.

Will anyone buy your book? Depends. Survey says 'probably not'.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 30, 2014)

Good point about tech writing, runnah. I think an argument could be made that it's fundamentally different from what LeGuin's talking about.

More like an x-ray tech than a photographer, to stretch an analogy. Still, it's definitely commodity writing. Words by the yard, my words are ideally indistinguishable from your words.


----------



## sashbar (Nov 30, 2014)

I still can not get to grips with how inclusively the word "art" is being used in English.


----------



## sashbar (Nov 30, 2014)

Fred Berg said:


> I can imagine having funds to spend on expensive gear might help produce fine photographs, however, not being in such a financial position I am unable to put this to the test. I don't know whether or not any of my photos could be called fine, but my gear cost me considerably less than one thousand euros in total. Money isn't everything.



To my estimate, Fred, you need 356 USD, something unique and important to say, an all consuming desire to convey your message and a clear idea of how exactly to do it, and you will be producing fine photographs, that will trounce 99% of images what we see on the net.  I can guarantee that.


----------



## Designer (Nov 30, 2014)

sashbar said:


> I still can not get to grips with how inclusively the word "art" is being used in English.


Also "literature".


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 30, 2014)

Are other languages more restrictive in their use of the word 'art'?


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 30, 2014)

sashbar said:


> I still can not get to grips with how inclusively the word "art" is being used in English.



Everything is art...apparently.

There was an artist recently who had an installation where he talks to people on a hookup app and then projects the conversations onto a big screen (with the faces of the people on app blurred out).

"Art"


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 30, 2014)

I'm not certain why the boundaries of art are an issue.
If someone wants to try to create, they may be bad artists and create bad art but, if it makes them happy and fulfilled, so be it.
I get an enormous amount of satisfaction (and angst) from trying to create.
In the long run, that's better for me than trying to be yet another cookie cutter wedding photographer.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 30, 2014)

Lew and I are in agreement. Several times in this thread.

Which can mean only one thing. APOCALYPSE.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 30, 2014)

or you're finally wising up.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 30, 2014)

I did not find LeGuin's speech in the slightest elitist. She's simply suggesting that the industry would be well served by spending less time looking for commodities.

Rather than trying to write, and trying to find the writer who is writing, another vampire series, or zombies, or the 'next Harry Potter' or whatever, spend more effort on something new.

I'm sure that in his day there were people aping Dickens, and people publishing them. But the industry was not so maniacally focused on churning out thinly veiled copies of Bleak House. Dickens was not leaned upon to simply write David Copperfield over and over with minor changes.

Commodity is being read as more of a dirty wrote than perhaps she means. It's not that there's no place for sequels. It's just that there should be more room for genuinely new work.

Photography is subject to much more commidification. The whole point of wide areas of photography for money is to produce photos that look like those other ones. That too is OK.

What I object to is the idea that commodity photography is really the only good endpoint. I think photography has room for a much higher dose of commodity work than is really healthy for, say, fiction writing. But there's still not to photography than that.

Especially irritating is when the standards of commercial commodity photography are applied everywhere. 'Needs fill'


----------



## Fred Berg (Dec 2, 2014)

sashbar said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > I can imagine having funds to spend on expensive gear might help produce fine photographs, however, not being in such a financial position I am unable to put this to the test. I don't know whether or not any of my photos could be called fine, but my gear cost me considerably less than one thousand euros in total. Money isn't everything.
> ...



356 USD?


----------



## Forkie (Dec 2, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > I still can not get to grips with how inclusively the word "art" is being used in English.
> ...



That's kind of the point of art, though.

Art is not simply oil paintings of aristocrats leaning on fireplaces or sculptures of religious figures.  Art literally is all things to all people.

Why should the installation you mentioned not be considered art?  It could be considered as a snapshot or portrait of people in a certain social situation or an observation of human interaction.  That's what a portrait is. It's a capture of the character, personality or simply the appearance of a person - it's a study of people (or even animals, if you want to be all encompassing!).  I see no reason why that has to be restricted to a painting, or a still image or even a moving image, for that matter.  The "art" of conversation is a much coveted skill in these days of social media and anonymous communication.


----------



## sashbar (Dec 2, 2014)

Fred Berg said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > Fred Berg said:
> ...



Too much?


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 2, 2014)

Tino Sehgal is my go-to example of where art can go. He's worth thinking about pretty hard. After reading up on what he does, and (most likely) rapidly dismissing it as pretentious crud, ask yourself this:

"How does the experience Sehgal's work provides the art-appreciator/viewer/museum-goer actually differ from viewing Art As We Know It?"

it's not like you get to take the paintings home with you. What you have is an experience, and the memory of same.


----------



## sashbar (Dec 2, 2014)

Forkie said:


> I see no reason why that has to be restricted to a painting, or a still image or even a moving image, for that matter.  The "art" of conversation is a much coveted skill in these days of social media and anonymous communication.



Art is certainly not restricted to a painting, or a still image . The only thing it is restricted to is talent.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 2, 2014)

Forkie said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...



I never said it wasn't art...I was mostly just implying that it's really shitty art.

While my sister is over here creating a beautiful earth work thesis project (both conceptually and aesthetically) that she spent six months resourcing and putting together, the dude sharing the exhibit said screw it and had a leafblower pushing a receipt against a plate of glass.

10/10, most amazing arts, here's your Ph.D.

Just because everything is art doesn't mean I have to respect everything as art, especially if it's something that I could easily see on a classy, intellectual site like College Humor.

But then again, I also disagree with the postmodern idea that the artist statement has equal or more importance than the product. I'm a little old fashioned I guess.


----------



## Forkie (Dec 3, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> While my sister is over here creating a beautiful earth work thesis project (both conceptually and aesthetically) that she spent six months resourcing and putting together, the dude sharing the exhibit said screw it and had a leafblower pushing a receipt against a plate of glass.
> 
> ...
> 
> But then again, I also disagree with the postmodern idea that the artist statement has equal or more importance than the product. *I'm a little old fashioned I guess.*



And a little biased, perhaps?


----------



## bribrius (Dec 3, 2014)

I start with the premise that photography has always been considered one of the lesser arts, and there by I naturally have less respect for photography as a art than I may have a writer or painter. The most talented people for me personally I have come across in art are not photographers.
They seem to be the red headed step child grasping on to the coat tails of the thriving art world.  So as a commodity, well lets just say if one were to sell out they are picking the right medium and will be among a multitude..


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 3, 2014)

It's interesting that photography is still seen as a lesser art. I even feel that way myself, I think.

And yet, in terms of what Art is supposed to actually Do, photography is wildly more successful than anything else. Photography's immediacy and sense of reality allows us to connect more immediately with the image. So photography has a kind of back door into our brains, where it can do the work Art should.

Photographs inspire, teach, enlarge, and enrage us far more than paintings or sculptures, these days.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 3, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> It's interesting that photography is still seen as a lesser art. I even feel that way myself, I think.
> 
> And yet, in terms of what Art is supposed to actually Do, photography is wildly more successful than anything else. Photography's immediacy and sense of reality allows us to connect more immediately with the image. So photography has a kind of back door into our brains, where it can do the work Art should.
> 
> Photographs inspire, teach, enlarge, and enrage us far more than paintings or sculptures, these days.


 Because it has the primary purpose of being a record.
tabula rasa (one of my favorites) clean slate.

painting, sculpture, writing, you start with a clean slate. You create your world. Photography you start with something already born, you just copied it to fit your rendition, then if you tweak it in photoshop or darkroom I guess you got that, but it has never been taken as serious as a art. As you never started from tabula rasa and used it for a less inclined purpose than its birth right.

you see it that way, because it IS that way..

Not to dis photography I think it is amazing, for its inclined purpose, absolutely freakn amazing. it has something the other arts couldn't offer accurately. A actual record.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 3, 2014)

But most 'artists' don't actually start with a clean slate.
They often copy from life and may even use a camera obscura to provide a scheme to draw on.
Many artists use already created materials to form their work with little or no intervention frm their manual skills.
The original purpose of paint was not to create art but to cover walls.

Making a distinction between 'artists' and photographers is artificial.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 3, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> But most 'artists' don't actually start with a clean slate.
> They often copy from life and may even use a camera obscura to provide a scheme to draw on.
> Many artists use already created materials to form their work with little or no intervention frm their manual skills.
> The original purpose of paint was not to create art but to cover walls.
> ...


that's the same argument the photographic community has been making for a hundred fifty years to gain acceptance into the art world, and they still haven't completely made it.
Perhaps you could explain to me why that is?  why the majority in and out of the the art world never considered photography as a equal art to the others? Why many even in the photographic community itself defined it as documentary rather an art?

Not to say a artist cant use photography as a medium, but a photographer does not make artist.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 3, 2014)

I actually don't think paint started out for painting houses, unless you are talking about Sherwin Williams kind of paint. I will have to think about that. Lot of things were painted, or painted on without modern paint and I don't think it was their dwellings.. hmm.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 3, 2014)

I'll just leave this here 

The Vagina Scent Artists Returns With A Reprise Of <em>That</em> Courbet Painting (NSFW)

"For the work, de Cupere takes a paintbrush and replaces its bristles with pubic hair. In lieu of paint, he offers up his signature scent, a new-and-improved take on the smell from "The Deflowering," made from a mixture of "even more women from different races and nationalities.'"

*Art*


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 3, 2014)

I didn't say that every photographer is an artist, just that photography is a medium just like any other.
There are structural difference between the other art forms and photography that affects how photography is seen.
Except for drawing, the rest of the graphic art forms take some amount of non-fungible equipment - paint, pastels, chisels, blocks of stone, etc and once one fails, there is little way to go on using them, so failed artists disappear. Photographers, no matter how crappy they are, can keep on producing 'stuff.'
Secondly, mediocre, bad, poor, failed artists in other media have little way to show their work and it has little use for documentation so it isn't noticed.  There is no way to see that vast tide of really bad art unless you actively seek it out, because it is rarely shown.
Photography and the Internet blossomed together and so it is visible.
Yes, photography gets a technology boost but artists who used camera obscura got a technology boost.
Artists who create from pre-existing materials, who use commercial paints and paper, or who use welders or pneumatic tools or other person's music - all benefit from a hands up from something.

Looking around here, what you see is a mix of people who want to document in a pleasing way and those who want to create art - and even if its mediocre or bad, it gets seen.
Bad painting, bad sculpture, bad drawing is effectively hidden because there is no easy way to get it seen.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 3, 2014)

sashbar said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > I see no reason why that has to be restricted to a painting, or a still image or even a moving image, for that matter.  The "art" of conversation is a much coveted skill in these days of social media and anonymous communication.
> ...


And vision.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 3, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> I didn't say that every photographer is an artist, just that photography is a medium just like any other.
> There are structural difference between the other art forms and photography that affects how photography is seen.
> Except for drawing, the rest of the graphic art forms take some amount of non-fungible equipment - paint, pastels, chisels, blocks of stone, etc and once one fails, there is little way to go on using them, so failed artists disappear. Photographers, no matter how crappy they are, can keep on producing 'stuff.'
> Secondly, mediocre, bad, poor, failed artists in other media have little way to show their work and it has little use for documentation so it isn't noticed.  There is no way to see that vast tide of really bad art unless you actively seek it out, because it is rarely shown.
> ...


for me I see a very basic different approach. In painting, and writing I looked at the page or canvas empty and just imagined the possibility. whatever it I wanted it to be it would be as long as I could fit it in the frame. And physically writing, or painting, was a much more personal experience in that sense.
Photography, I walk out the door with a camera. While  may gain insight, a particular shot or something worth the capture I am still limited by what is already there. it exists, outside of my creativity. I can capture it in a perhaps different way, but it is something I am no coming up with from scratch, with limitations. I can pull it into processing I suppose, but staring at a computer adjusting a image does not "feel" the same way as a stroke on a canvas. Not to proclaim myself a artist, but I see the viewpoint clearly least from where I am as a camera is not the personal experience in creativity as starting out with a open canvas or that blank sheet. It doesn't "feel" the same and it seems shared with what is around, rather than just from what is within.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 3, 2014)

I think you'd be surprised at how infrequently painters, sculptors, and so on, start from nothing and create from that. They're often working from life, or from a photograph of life, or at least a clear memory of life. Even abstracts are often pulling forms and ideas from life.

Also, the limitations of working from what is really there, with the camera, are not that restrictive. There's room for a great deal of vision and interpretation.

Finally, limitations are good. Artists often choose to limit themselves, often in arbitrary ways, just to help them focus.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 3, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I think you'd be surprised at how infrequently painters, sculptors, and so on, start from nothing and create from that. They're often working from life, or from a photograph of life, or at least a clear memory of life. Even abstracts are often pulling forms and ideas from life.
> 
> Also, the limitations of working from what is really there, with the camera, are not that restrictive. There's room for a great deal of vision and interpretation.
> 
> Finally, limitations are good. Artists often choose to limit themselves, often in arbitrary ways, just to help them focus.


much different experience however though, wouldn't you say?

And I just envisioned three kids building a sand castle down on the beach with a threatening tide. You think if I drive down there I will find three kids building a sand castle to take a photo of? suppose one could photoshop one up but it isn't quite the same thing is it.

how about writing. lets say one of my three kids drowns. The other two grow up somewhat tormented from it, afraid to swim after that. Follows them their life. They attempt to conjure up their dead friend and conjure of a evil spirit instead, suddenly they are out of control with anxiety looking around ever corner and blah blah blah blah.
you going to put all that in a photograph? It isn't even on the same scale...that is why they started screen plays and motion picture (often taken from books).

And if you took a photo, you wouldn't have the entire story, if you painted it you would at least have the brush strokes and could decide the story for yourself (though still that moment). But what the photo could give you (IF THERE were three kids at the beach) is a very accurate portrayal of the three kids building the sand castle. Pretty sure they aren't there though it is winter time.

This is probably why it is always perceived that way? There are significant differences in the level of creativity allowed and personal interaction with the work itself. just my two cents. I see a difference, I think most people do and always have.


----------



## runnah (Dec 3, 2014)

Labeling, defining and categorizing "art" is the antithesis what art is.


----------



## david walls (Dec 3, 2014)

when pricing an item. you must put yourself completely out of the element. how much YOU make and have in your pocket isn't the same for everyone else. there are a lot of people out there with out any artistic talent that want to be able to admire someone that does and they usually have the most cash because they don't buy a bunch of equipment to make art. so jack it up. the more expensive the piece the more valuable it becomes!


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 3, 2014)

runnah said:


> Labeling, defining and categorizing "art" is the antithesis what art is.



How do I know you're not talking out of your ass, as your profile pic implies?


----------



## runnah (Dec 3, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Labeling, defining and categorizing "art" is the antithesis what art is.
> ...



It's safe to assume that I am talking out of my ass a majority of the time. The trick is to sound like you know what you are talking about and to cut down anyone who call you on it.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 3, 2014)

runnah said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



I'm a level 69 ad-hominem druid. Whenever my opinion is discredited, I bring attention to the fact that the other person is a communist, a sheep and/or fugly.

My magic makes them forget all about the fact that I my OP made me sound like a dumbass because they're too busy cowering at my insults.


----------

