I'm in and out of art galleries often. I watch the production, display, and acclaim-seeking of a lot of camera-based art these days and I'll say that most of it is discovered rather than created.
Modern digital picture-making enables innumerable images to be captured without effortful thought, without technical skill, and without cost. A successful "artist" shoot (I've watched a few) may be no more challenging than gathering evocative materials, models, sets, props, and lights, and banging away at promising juxtapositions several thousand times in succession until fatigue or boredom sets in. The next step is to bring art into being. Somewhere in the winnowing and editing process quirky, weird, or striking images will be found. If not found then processed into existence. There is genuine art, major or minor, in recognising which images go over well in contemporary galleries.
Assuming an exhibition venue is already organised the next step is to call up one's funding and order production of very large versions of the selected images. Finally value has to be imbued into the art-work by a process called valorisation. Valorisation is achieved by discourse. And discourse is all the publicity, talk, critical acclaim, artist interviews, auctioneering, and conspicuous prices bid by millionaires that power the contemporary art cycle.
This is all very different to a traditional approach of making pictures out of light-sensitive materials. Light-sensitive materials are expensive, cannot be un-exposed and re-used, require refined technical knowledge, and impose extended effort in merely making lookable pictures to check one's progress.
If you have read this far you will know which side I am on. Classic APUG style photography, by way of contrast with the contemporary picture-making, is preservation of what fine photography has always been. It offers a rich experience for people who love rarity, singularity, fully realized handcraft, fine materials, archival durability, coherent scholarship, and interesting content. It remains worth looking at.
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.
there is very little of what you have described that can not relate to film and paper as well .. ?
there is a lot of stuff that is poorly thought and executed no matter the medium
I think there is a bit of "Valorisation" being done.
Originally Posted by jnanian
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
There are many barriers to attaining artistic success.
A number of the barriers have been reduced in recent years - primarily some of the technical ones, as well as barriers relating to issues of access and distribution - but that does not remove most of the really important ones. Those being the ones related to creativity, perception, vision, dedication, intuitive and objective understanding, salesmanship and ability to understand finances.
One thing I do know - I certainly couldn't do what Cindy Sherman does .
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
people that whine about the art scene are spending too much time being experts and not enough time actively believing in themselves and pushing their work in front of the right people.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm gonna take up poetry.
There once was a hack from Nantucket.
He kept all the fix in a bucket.
He kicked it one day and it all washed away,
So he threw up his hands and said
"You gotta be kidding me!"
Think I got skill? See, I could have done that.
It is part of the artistic process to make what is very difficult appear to be very simple. This tempts people to say "I could have done that" when in reality they can't. To take an example from music, it is much harder to correctly play a quiet and contemplative piece like the Bach Prelude in C major from the Well Tempered Clavicord or the Sarabande from the Goldberg variations than some fast and loud piece. The slightest mistake will be glaringly obvious with the two Bach examples.
Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 01-10-2014 at 09:58 PM. Click to view previous post history.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Not a fair example... one mistake while playing Bach and your fingers end up tangled together, lol.
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
When I was studying music at University, I would always get this nervous feeling when student pianists would play Bach. The intricacy of Bach often defies the phrasing practices of more modern music. Even highly-skilled musicians would have to un-learn long practiced habits to properly navigate the landscape of a "simple" Bach fugue. Myself, I was a trumpet player, so little Bach for me. Nonetheless, I had much unlearning to do before I was ready to properly break rules.
Originally Posted by Truzi
Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada
Ansel Adams had the Zone System... I'm working on the points
system. First I points it here, and then I points it there...
How's that working for you?
Originally Posted by Chris Lange
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.