PDA

View Full Version : What's up with the blur and grain?



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

Rudeofus
02-15-2013, 09:07 AM
You're very intent on whether they are innovating or not but I don't think innovation is what makes an artist an artist. Inventing HDR or Instagram doesn't make that person an artist, but if they do something really good with it, then they are an artist and an innovator.
Few artists have the technical skills to develop a new technique by themselves. Van Gogh didn't come up with Chromium yellow, some unknown chemist did. Van Gogh also didn't invent still life paintings or sunflowers, but the way he presented sunflowers was certainly novel and intriguing. The term innovation goes far beyond technical advances. Expressing something new or in a new way with common means is also a form of innovation.

The blurry truck image doesn't do any of that, and therefore IMHO it doesn't go beyond the "nice image!" level. And this (http://www.google.com/images?q="black+and+white"+blurry+truck+road) is not an art collection.

Felinik
02-15-2013, 09:36 AM
You're very intent on whether they are innovating or not but I don't think innovation is what makes an artist an artist. Inventing HDR or Instagram doesn't make that person an artist, but if they do something really good with it, then they are an artist and an innovator.


This I completely agree with, if there's a certain level of innovation and creativity, blurry - grainy - underexposed - stained - whatnot, can definitely add something to an image, though then the threshold of originality need to really be noticeable!

Mainecoonmaniac
02-15-2013, 09:45 AM
Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?

Felinik
02-15-2013, 10:00 AM
Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?

My reply to this is in my posting above yours.

:)

horacekenneth
02-15-2013, 10:10 AM
Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?

I assume you mean challenging emotionally or philosophically. I think art can have a number of purposes. It doesn't need to be deep, but it can be and that can add. It can also be cheesy and distract from what would otherwise have been a nice photo. Does anybody know what Ansel Adam's purpose in his landscapes was? I imagine his art wasn't meant to be any more challenging than to show other people the world in a very technical fashion.

My question is what does the medium do to your message? A hyper-realist painter, a pro large format photographer, and a guy with an 8x10 polaroid (loaded with something more accurate than IP film) all make a picture of the same landscape. How does the medium change the message? What if it was a portrait?

Prof_Pixel
02-15-2013, 10:10 AM
Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?

Art is supposed to 'say something' to the viewer. To me, the truck photo only says 'accidental exposure while the camera was hanging over my shoulder'; your milage may vary.

pdeeh
02-15-2013, 10:43 AM
As far as the 'famous' photographers go, it seems to me that such work is often treated like 'the emperors new clothes'.

Of course, sometimes the Emperor's old clothes are worn out and shabby ... but perhaps many think they are still sparkling and fresh

Vaughn
02-15-2013, 10:49 AM
Art is supposed to 'say something' to the viewer. To me, the truck photo only says 'accidental exposure while the camera was hanging over my shoulder'; your milage may vary.

And as we grow older, our hearing just aint what it use to be...;)

Felinik
02-15-2013, 11:14 AM
Art is supposed to 'say something' to the viewer. To me, the truck photo only says 'accidental exposure while the camera was hanging over my shoulder'; your milage may vary.

Maybe it was...

What interests me is that in the end, and this is what triggered me to start this thread, is that the artist for some reason chose to keep it, and that the curator has chosen it to be included in the exhibition + book...

Though I buy that "it's fashion", there's loads of ugly clothes on the street nowadays too...


:D

/Grumpy old fart

Mainecoonmaniac
02-15-2013, 11:29 AM
How about these classic photos by Robert Capa?

http://www.mcdigitalphotography.com/2012/03/robert-capa-masters-of-photography.html

Michael R 1974
02-15-2013, 12:32 PM
I don't think art has to "say" anything. A great work of art can be highly communicative, evocative etc, or it can be nothing more than pure aesthetics, and anything in between. I consider everything I see on its own merits. I might just love looking at something, even if it has no other "levels" to it. That's good enough to be great art in my opinion. It can be a blurry, grainy print, or a technical photographic masterpiece, or an office building, or Guernica, or a carpet pattern. If it excites me, it's great. If it doesn't, I don't care what it says or doesn't say. That's all there is to it. Only my opinion, of course. Many would disagree. Picasso certainly would, as he differentiated between what he considered true art and decoration. I don't care.

Mainecoonmaniac
02-15-2013, 12:43 PM
I don't think art has to "say" anything.

I agree. Art should help us escape our dull daily existence for a little while at least. Possibly transformative. There's some art that "say" something different to every viewer. And there's nothing wrong with that.

horacekenneth
02-15-2013, 02:41 PM
I agree. Art should help us escape our dull daily existence for a little while at least. Possibly transformative. There's some art that "say" something different to every viewer. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I almost think this is the definition of bad art. If five people look at my work and each comes away with something that is totally different than what I was trying to communicate then I didn't do a good job. I think technique is subservient even to this. The merits of the sample truck picture to me are not whether or not the camera was on a tripod and developed so as to minimize grain, the merits are in first does it communicate what the author intended, and then second, is it a good message.

Michael R 1974
02-15-2013, 03:11 PM
What if all a photographer intends to do is show a place (for example) as he sees it, and allow people to react (or not) in any way they see fit? Why does the photographer have to be "communicating" something specific through the photograph?

By virtue of our own unique personalities, any honestly made photograph automatically says something about how a photographer sees the world around him, be it subtly or obviously. Does there always have to be some message people are supposed to "get"?

horacekenneth
02-15-2013, 03:42 PM
What if all a photographer intends to do is show a place (for example) as he sees it, and allow people to react (or not) in any way they see fit? Why does the photographer have to be "communicating" something specific through the photograph?

By virtue of our own unique personalities, any honestly made photograph automatically says something about how a photographer sees the world around him, be it subtly or obviously. Does there always have to be some message people are supposed to "get"?

I don't understand, you say that every photograph says something and then you turn around ask does there always have to be a message. It seems like you answered that one for yourself. There always is a message.

Showing people the world as you see it IS a message. You can't not communicate something, and trying not to is a message in itself. Therefore, I would say that good art is art that communicates a good message well, and bad art communicates poorly or communicates something wrong.

Michael R 1974
02-15-2013, 07:46 PM
I probably didn't explain myself very well and confused the issue. When I say "seeing" I'm just refering to visual perception. I'm saying there doesn't have to be a conscious message or statement, that different viewers might therefore easily come away with entirely different interpretations and thoughts, and that this doesn't mean it is bad art.

rwreich
02-15-2013, 08:04 PM
One makes an image to show, but to whom? Is a photographer simply providing an alibi, proving one's own existence? On APUG, I've heard people say, "It's all about the print." If this is true, then photography is the tangible expression of perspective in moments past. A photograph doesn't have to 'say' something, rather, it only needs to encounter a viewer. It is during this event, the simultaneous existence between viewer and photograph, that the artist is able to communicate from the first person.

That sounds wicked cheesy, but it's how I feel about photography right now.

jnanian
02-15-2013, 08:22 PM
maybe whats up with the blur and the grain is
that the photographer<s> in question are tired
of making clinical looking photographs.
tired of HCB, tired of atget, tired of weston and adams
and he/<they> want to use other aspects of photography
that the hcb, atget, weston, adams &al. group might have overlooked?


at least whoever it might be who "you don't want to out" has you and others talking about aspects of photography that might
not be in your comfort zone. and that is always a good thing ... i think it is laughable when people refer to people
who do things they don't understand or like as "idiots"




----


Oh please!

my thoughts exactly

markbarendt
02-15-2013, 08:23 PM
I react more on the bad exposure/development than the actual blur, even a blurry picture can indeed tell a story, but why make things worse....

One effect of sharp visible grain is that it gives our eyes something sharp to latch onto.

hoffy
02-15-2013, 11:08 PM
maybe whats up with the blur and the grain is
that the photographer<s> in question are tired
of making clinical looking photographs.
tired of HCB, tired of atget, tired of weston and adams
and he/<they> want to use other aspects of photography
that the hcb, atget, weston, adams &al. group might have overlooked?

at least whoever it might be who "you don't want to out" has you and others talking about aspects of photography that might
not be in your comfort zone. and that is always a good thing ... i think it is laughable when people refer to people
who do things they don't understand or like as "idiots"

----

my thoughts exactly
Very well put. Like most art, if you can think of it, chances are someone has already done it.

This is their interpretation and this is what they possibly purposely went out to do and more power to them. Is it new? No, but it certainly has our tongues wagging.

Felinik, would you show us some examples of what type of photography you like and the type of photography (not yours) that you would buy?