Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,545   Posts: 1,544,435   Online: 1055
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 60
  1. #31
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,311
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    We don't live in a vacuum.

    There are rules and they nearly always apply; if one wants to pass a class the professor's rules apply, or if one intends to succeed in marketing their art, the rules of the market apply. If I want to please my wife's taste in art I need to use color, that's the rule.

    The only time "the rules" don't apply is for purely personal work.
    Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the blind obedience of fools.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Alamo City, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,284
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the blind obedience of fools.
    Who's that quoted from?

  3. #33
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,284
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the blind obedience of fools.
    I'm the son of an art educator...

    I talked to my dad last night and he brought up 'rules', saying there are those who want chaos and anarchy but art schools need to teach the rules to prepare people for the world that lies ahead.

    I said the world that lies ahead will be one of chaos and anarchy so I am preparing my children for that future...

    He got a laugh out of it. Whether what I or he said last night is true or not... I don't know.

  4. #34
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,311
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble View Post
    Who's that quoted from?
    Group Captain Sir Douglas Robert Steuart Bader CBE, DSO & Bar, DFC & Bar,
    FRAeS, DL (21 February 1910 – 5 September 1982).

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  5. #35
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,284
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    You're far better off ******* the exposure, **** the focus, ****** shift/tilts, .... and then ***** the developing.

    Once you have the developed negative place it carefully on floor and place your foot on it, turn on Chubby Checker and do the twist with it.

    When you print it, make an hack, amateur print and develop it in the wrong *****.
    Though I assume this was tongue in cheek, there could be some value in this exercise.

    If your usual standards are sharp prints, perfectly exposed, developed and printed... break out to see what lies underneath... Print negatives you would normally discard. You may find yourself...

  6. #36
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,733
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the blind obedience of fools.
    This is a great point.

    I would also say that most people try to be good at the wrong rules, as blansky suggests above;

    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    That's because photographers are trying to be good at it. A total waste of time.

    You're far better off the fuck up the exposure, fuck up the focus, fuck up the shift/tilts, if you're anal enough to have them, and then fuck up the developing.

    Once you have the developed negative place it carefully on floor and place your foot on it, turn on Chubby Checker and do the twist with it.

    When you print it, make an hack, amateur print and develop it in the wrong shit.

    And viola.

    You be an artiste.

    And wear a cape.
    Being normal is a commodity, being different is value added.

    Being different is a performance, Adams was there once, but once established and refined to fit the rules of commerce that character becomes a trademark and one's bread and butter. In time possibly even the norm.

    To be blunt, it's no longer tough for people so inclined to travel to almost anywhere in this world and take a well focused, sharp, long DOF, landscape shot, and manipulate the tones.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #37
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    I have to agree with Bill there, I remember when I was taking an early photo class, my professor was talking about how developer is generally used at 20c, my friend and I looked at each other and smiled....we then boiled the the water, mixed in the hc110, developed the film...the result was predictable (crazy contrast, emulsion boiled away in the highlights, etc, etc), the professor was joyed to be able to talk with my fellow students how it all worked, one of the photos is one my all time fav's....learning, experimentation, find your voice....
    Andy

  8. #38
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,179
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    That's because photographers are trying to be good at it. A total waste of time.

    You're far better off to fuck up the exposure, fuck up the focus, fuck up the shift/tilts, if you're anal enough to have them, and then fuck up the developing.

    Once you have the developed negative place it carefully on floor and place your foot on it, turn on Chubby Checker and do the twist with it.

    When you print it, make an hack, amateur print and develop it in the wrong shit.

    And viola.

    You be an artiste.

    And wear a cape.
    You nailed it, Michael. I'm thinking Rauschenberg here.
    Jim

  9. #39
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,311
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3 View Post
    You nailed it, Michael. I'm thinking Rauschenberg here.
    Although there is much pretentious crap in modern art, I don't think Rauschenberg is one of them. His artwork is fantastic.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  10. #40
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Well, I study art history at the Ph.D. level, so I guess I share some of the burden of responsibility for your predicament.

    When you look at photography from a maker's point of view, part of what you're doing is intuitive, another part is very conscious and intentional, and a last part is more or less contingent, the result of either circumstances, chance, or zeitgeist.

    When you look at photography from an art historian point of view, you need to see meaning, intention, design, or concept. Not just because of Conceptual Art (tm), but because we appreciate art works as things with a history of making that make some kind of sense. Most art historians will be looking for some kind of explanation behind a picture: why did he painted the sky purple rather than blue? why is it sharp instead of fuzzy? etc.

    Obviously, a good art historian will not mistake her interpretations and meaning-making activities with the intention of an artist. She will acknowledge that the meaning of the work is broader than what was just intended, and will talk about it in terms of how it makes sense, how it can function with an audience, rather than just "what meaning was intended."

    Now everybody can point at a photograph that exists more or less because of luck/happenstance/minimal design and that generated in turn a HUGE literature on its significance. Much of which can be legitimate anyway, since the reception of art work is a valid object of study.

    BUT there seems to have been lately in the realm of photography school more and more conflating of these two different points of view. I see art historians putting forward their artistic practice as part of their academic work, while I see artists adopting more and more the language, concepts, stance, and reflexes of art historians in the presentation of their work. This might be due to the simple fact that for most artists who want to have a stab at teaching, art history is the direct way out of fine arts programs (I consider myself strictly as an amateur photographer, in all possible senses of the term, that's why I hang around here).

    On the one hand, I can understand the need for photo teachers to push their students to be articulate about their photos, since they themselves must be so. For the administration of the college, having a word-shy genius like a Garry Winogrand for teacher can be a liability, despite the beautiful risk it carries of fostering greatness. On the other, I am well aware that students learn to write whatever their teacher asks them, and just go about photographing. Others buy more into it, and know that mastering this way of talking about photo will help them navigate the world of galleries and collectors.

    I think you have to be able to defend what you're doing, since we less and less let "geniuses" loose without a fight; it's also important for yourself to understand what you're doing (and verbalizing it is one way to make it clear) if you want your work to develop; but no amount of semiotics, concept, intention talk, political critique, etc. will make you a better photographer in and out of itself.
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin