Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,813   Posts: 1,581,587   Online: 894
      
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 115
  1. #41
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    OP
    anything you want to call Art is art, its just a word.
    i've seen food that i would call art its just an opinion ...
    Not so much an opinion but an assertion, perhaps. Since the days of Marcel Duchamp it seems that anything can be made art by simply declaring it so. This does not preclude the likelihood that it is thoroughly bad art worth ignoring.
    and im with eddie..
    photography has NOTHING to do with reality
    The contrary can be put convincingly. Photography is the only picture making process that is absolutely and physically bound to its subject matter. All other pictures are built by mark-making devices controlled by information in the form of coded instructions. A photograph is an existence proof of subject matter. A digigraph, or painting, or drawing is not.
    maris .. every other post here on apug you argue that digital image making has nothing to do with photography
    Photography is making pictures out of light sensitive materials. Digital picture-making, painting, and drawing don't work that way. It's always possible, absolutely and unambiguously, to distinguish a photograph from a digigraph by following the work-flow that produces it. There is no imperative in the simple-minded notion that if a camera is at the front end of the work-flow all resultant pictures are photographs and the credited picture-maker is a photographer.
    and then you go into a rant that photographic prints are not photographs but something else, because the negative is in essence the ONLY photograph a "photographer" makes ...
    Always and consistently I insist quite the opposite. "Photographic prints" is misconstrued weasel expression for "Photographs". It's almost as if some people are ashamed of the word "photograph" and need to apologise for its plainness and directness by adding "print". Photographs on paper are not made like prints. Rather, they are produced in exactly the same way as photographs on film. The only difference is that the subject matter for photographs on paper is often (but not always) another photograph. Again there is no imperative in the notion that if a photograph on paper looks like a print it is a print. I say "photograph" and I say it without diffidence.
    now you suggest HCB wasn't a photogtapher, but an exposure maker??!
    is that because he didn't process hos own film? pr some other reason?
    i find this point of view to be laughable seeing probably99% of every commercial photographer
    or portrait photographer has someone else process and print their exposures ..
    do you mean that karsh and others who didn't do everything themselves are jusr exposure makers??
    Like it or lump it, that's how H.C-B and Karsh and Leibovitz and Stern and Nadar... the list is very long... operated. The tradition that acclaims them as photographers is, I reckon, a lousy one and not worth worshipping. I don't see the denigration in admiring them as exposure-makers supported by a team of picture-making employees. It's just another path to great art. But it isn't the art of the photograph maker. The argument would be moot if it were not for the existence of acclaimed photographers who don't just stop at exposures. I'm thinking of people like Julia Cameron, Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams...the list is very long...and many people at APUG who actually make the photographs they sign. The two groups are different, the makers and non-makers, and I know which lot I admire.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,878
    Images
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    Not so much an opinion but an assertion, perhaps. Since the days of Marcel Duchamp it seems that anything can be made art by simply declaring it so. This does not preclude the likelihood that it is thoroughly bad art worth ignoring.
    im not thinking of marcel duchamp or r mutt, but other things. there are plenty of things that can be considered art, from origami, to hand made paper to sushi to fish rubbings.
    no one said all art is good art, and there is plenty of art by "the masters" that so many people hold in esteem that i think is a load of cr@p, i won't go naming names but there are a lot of them ...
    any art is worth ignoring if you wish to do it, but you might miss the message, and sometimes bad art has even a more important message than the stuff people swoon over.


    The contrary can be put convincingly. Photography is the only picture making process that is absolutely and physically bound to its subject matter. All other pictures are built by mark-making devices controlled by information in the form of coded instructions. A photograph is an existence proof of subject matter. A digigraph, or painting, or drawing is not.
    while i believe some of that to be true, yes, something had to be there to interfere with the light on the media but that can be just the beginning. i have made things that just consist of emulsion painted
    on paper exposed in the sun and they have no bearing on reality any more than a painting. and i find it to be strange that a sensor isn't light sensitive ?
    it is as light sensitive as film or paper. the technology is different that is about it.

    Photography is making pictures out of light sensitive materials. Digital picture-making, painting, and drawing don't work that way. It's always possible, absolutely and unambiguously, to distinguish a photograph from a digigraph by following the work-flow that produces it. There is no imperative in the simple-minded notion that if a camera is at the front end of the work-flow all resultant pictures are photographs and the credited picture-maker is a photographer.
    digital image making DOES work that way, you just dont see it so.
    it is every bit possible to record information on a sensor, have it create a file and have it printed out on film or paper, just the technology is different. the work flow might be different
    but the result can be every bit the same as a traditional silver based image, just like making a xeroxagraphical duplication of a photograph can be used to make a paper negative and a cyanotype can be made from that. or are cyanotypes not photographs either ?


    Always and consistently I insist quite the opposite. "Photographic prints" is misconstrued weasel expression for "Photographs". It's almost as if some people are ashamed of the word "photograph" and need to apologise for its plainness and directness by adding "print". Photographs on paper are not made like prints. Rather, they are produced in exactly the same way as photographs on film. The only difference is that the subject matter for photographs on paper is often (but not always) another photograph. Again there is no imperative in the notion that if a photograph on paper looks like a print it is a print. I say "photograph" and I say it without diffidence.
    agreed


    Like it or lump it, that's how H.C-B and Karsh and Leibovitz and Stern and Nadar... the list is very long... operated. The tradition that acclaims them as photographers is, I reckon, a lousy one and not worth worshipping. I don't see the denigration in admiring them as exposure-makers supported by a team of picture-making employees. It's just another path to great art. But it isn't the art of the photograph maker. The argument would be moot if it were not for the existence of acclaimed photographers who don't just stop at exposures. I'm thinking of people like Julia Cameron, Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams...the list is very long...and many people at APUG who actually make the photographs they sign. The two groups are different, the makers and non-makers, and I know which lot I admire.
    i understand what you are saying, but i don't really buy it. i find the list of people you suggest are just exposure makers to be photographers as much as
    anyone who does the chemical work themselves. its like saying da vinci or michaelangelo weren't sculptors, painters &c because they had assistants who worked with them and did some of the work ...
    .. but to each their own

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    856
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    Like it or lump it, that's how H.C-B and Karsh and Leibovitz and Stern and Nadar... the list is very long... operated. The tradition that acclaims them as photographers is, I reckon, a lousy one and not worth worshipping. I don't see the denigration in admiring them as exposure-makers supported by a team of picture-making employees. It's just another path to great art. But it isn't the art of the photograph maker. The argument would be moot if it were not for the existence of acclaimed photographers who don't just stop at exposures. I'm thinking of people like Julia Cameron, Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams...the list is very long...and many people at APUG who actually make the photographs they sign. The two groups are different, the makers and non-makers, and I know which lot I admire.

    Maris, making a decent contact print or a simple enlargement from a negative is very easy and fast nowdays using modern prefabricated* materials. Why do you value this last step, which can be pretty straightforward and easy to accomplish, so much?




    *it would make a difference if these materials would have to be made by the photographers from scratch

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    144
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by miha View Post
    Maris, making a decent contact print or a simple enlargement from a negative is very easy and fast nowdays using modern prefabricated* materials. Why do you value this last step, which can be pretty straightforward and easy to accomplish, so much?
    Who's talking about a contact print or a simple enlargement?

    Have you seen the negative of the Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico??

    Have you seen Edward Weston's retouching table??

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    856
    Images
    9
    What's your point?

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    144
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by miha View Post
    What's your point?
    The point is that making the negative is the simple part!

    Making the final photograph from that negative requires hours, days, maybe even more.
    The negative is only the intermediate step. It's like a painter making a sketch, then taking it to his studio to make the final painting!

    Honestly, have you even been in a darkroom??

  7. #47

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,060
    Quote Originally Posted by ambaker View Post
    What is art? Seriously?

    More has been written about what is and is not art, than any of us will be able to read in our lifetimes.

    I would like to say that it requires thought, and input, from the human mind, and then some fool mucks it all up with a painting from an elephant, or a monkey.

    Does it take long hours of effort and dedication? Is that what makes it art? Then does a copy of the Mona Lisa qualify?

    Does it need originality? Then do the monkey and the elephant become artists?

    Personally, if the result speaks to me on more than a superficial level. If it stirs something in my supposed soul, then I believe it is art. Whether it was created off a CNC machine, or by a monkey. If it pulls me in deep, and whispers a new message, an unthought word, makes me FEEL something. Then I call it art.
    "Art" is something a school professor can make have a big fat salary and pension teaching about, and have contributed nothing to the world the whole time. Art, schmart. Either you like a picture or you don't. If you like it, it's "art". Maybe. I tend to think its just a nice picture.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    856
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by jernejk View Post
    The point is that making the negative is the simple part!
    Is it? Ask Rober Capa. Oh, you can't, he died "making nagatives" in Vietnam.


    Honestly, have you even been in a darkroom??
    Yes, I've just build my 3rd one. Maybe practice made it easy for me.


    p.s. I don't think the skils or the rate of manipulation while making photographs is what Maris had in his mind. Let's wait what he has to say, shall we?

  9. #49
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,658
    Images
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by jernejk View Post
    The point is that making the negative is the simple part!
    I wish.

    “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. #50

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,878
    Images
    23
    unless someone does the whole thing... they arent "a photographer" ...

    making negatives is ez,
    retouching is ez,
    making photographs/prints is ez,

    but unless you do it all you are just a exposure monkey, a film processor, retoucher, or printer ...

    it would be very ez to take this to another extreme and suggest that
    unless you mixed your own chemistry and emulsions from scratch,
    coated your materials,
    used a large format camera
    you arent real photographers ...

    (or maybe you even have to make your own compounded chemicals and paper and grind your own lenses too? )

    kodak and others lowered the bar in the 1880s, it wasnt the dadaists ...
    lucky for most people with a camera the jin is OUT of the bottle.

    over the years there has been a small grass roots effort here on apug to exclude people who
    don't process or print or whatever ... themselves. people who scan film or shoot chromes
    or use a lab, use LOMO or HOLGA or lo-fi cameras have been deemed unworthy by a vocal few.

    the view that a "photographer" has to do every step of the process ( expose, process, and print )
    use specific equipment, print in silver, or pt/pd, or wet plate, or calotype, or shoot only landscapes
    or representational images &c is part of this skewed idea that any less than everything is barely worth mentioning,
    while they are on the path to making great art, they fall short.

    i find this whole idea to be narrow minded but then again, i think the movements that shook the artworld
    were important. and that a folded piece of paper, piece of sushi or a found object,
    or something painted by thomas kinkade can be considered art just as much as a boring grande landscape
    or overdone portrait or hackneyed image printed in silver or PT/PD or on tin or glass.

    what do i know, im part exposure monkey and part photographer
    Last edited by jnanian; 12-03-2013 at 11:03 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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