Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,496   Posts: 1,571,428   Online: 1116
      
Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst 12345678910111216 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 227
  1. #51
    arigram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Crete, Greece
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,474
    Images
    69
    When it comes to professional photography,
    a commercial photographer does what the client wants,
    an artistic photographer does it in its own way then finds someone who will pay for it.
    Its not only aesthetics or substance its about intention as well.
    aristotelis grammatikakis
    www.arigram.gr
    Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
    no digital additives and shit




  2. #52
    stevebarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    lake worth FL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    134
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by David H. Bebbington
    Rather a dense collection of cryptic statements here!

    On APUG, or in the art world? And is this good or bad? A certain amount of self-belief and self-assertion is essential if you are going to present work to the world.

    Artists in general have the aim of making their art as understandable and accessible as possible (as opposed to critics, who mainly want to mystify everything and justify their own existence). Presumably the "very few" includes yourself?

    No and yes - lack of skills training is a major handicap for a photographic artist - you need to understand how the camera sees, be quick in operating your camera if necessary and understand how to manipulate the medium to make it say what you want it to say. Yes, few photographers produce art - it's too easy to be sidetracked by photographic technology, and dealing with the emotional journey of becoming an artist is more than most photographers can handle.

    Automatic deference to authority was that great mindset that brought us the Holocaust, the Vietnam war, etc., so three cheers that it has broken down. Yes, everyone can be an artist, musician, journalist, writer, critic, etc. today on the Internet - but to be GOOD, you need the same qualities that were always necessary!

    Regards,

    David
    egos, here in this thread.

    i am in school, learning art. i know enough to know very few people really understand what art is. alot of people can tell what is or isnt "art", and maybe talk about it, but most do not understand what it is.

    i still disagree with you on the artist making a photo. i would say an artist (not trained in photography) armed with a point and shoot 35mm, and a local lab, could make art more often than most photographers. or a digital camera for that matter. thats what im saying....an artist armed with a cheap digital camera, would make art more often than a photographer with a 4x5 and a nice b/w film.

    i totally agree with you about the holocaust and vietnam. the other side of that is - we will never again have a band like the beatles - or anything that so many people, as a group, are into and influenced by (good or bad). im saying, anyone can be those things today, because their is no authority on what is or isnt good. it is left up to you and me, and everyone else with a computer, to decide what is good. no more getting published, getting signed to a record deal, or being shown in a gallery. anyone can record an album, show work labeled "fine art", publish (sorta) a book, write a news story - today, and have an audience. things have changed.

    im not trying to be cryptic.
    steve barry
    my stuff

  3. #53
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by stevebarry
    i still disagree with you on the artist making a photo. i would say an artist (not trained in photography) armed with a point and shoot 35mm, and a local lab, could make art more often than most photographers. or a digital camera for that matter. thats what im saying....an artist armed with a cheap digital camera, would make art more often than a photographer with a 4x5 and a nice b/w film.
    Thanks for your response, Steve. Actually you don't disagree with me, because I agree with you! Most hobbyists/enthusiasts who use 4x5" do get sidetracked by technique and end up practising photography as a craft. It's not quite the same for me, since I am (just) old enough to go back to the days when 4x5" was the normal choice for everything! If an artist picks up a camera, he/she is more likely to be driven by a desire to express an idea - I myself feel with my own work that using 35 mm cameras results in much more spontaneity. And I feel that essentially all art photography is conceptual, insofar as it's the idea that counts - technique does require study but it isn't SO hard - at least compared with something like sculpting in marble!

    As regards knowing what art is, I can't claim to have the definitive answer, but as I have gone through professional life, I've found that an approximate working definition has emerged in my mind (and I've needed this every time I've had to take snap decisions when curating exhibitions and commissioning other photographers and also when deciding whether my own work is good, bad or worthy of being placed on public view). I am sure the same thing will happen to you as you go through your college course and beyond.

    Regards,

    David

  4. #54
    davetravis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Castle Rock, Co.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    656
    I've always believed photography is actually two distinctly different art forms. The first, image capture, may or may not be fine. It all depends upon the viewer, very subjective. On the show circuit I see much imagery that I consider fine, and much that I consider rather boring, or un-inspired.
    But that's just my personal biases.
    The second part of photographic art form I believe is the print.
    Here we have the opportunity to do many things to the original image that was captured. We can have a commercial print made, and the public might like it, and consider it fine. Or we can make it ourselves, and the public might consider it boring, and un-inspired. I'm not sure a precise definition of fine is possible. I do however see many ribbons being awarded to photographs by judges that are merely following their own biases, and that I wouldn't give second notice to. Who can say?

  5. #55
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,845
    If we have to talk so much about it, it can't be art. The best of art is felt, not discussed.

  6. #56
    stevebarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    lake worth FL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    134
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones
    If we have to talk so much about it, it can't be art. The best of art is felt, not discussed.
    do what now?
    steve barry
    my stuff

  7. #57
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by stevebarry
    i still disagree with you on the artist making a photo. i would say an artist (not trained in photography) armed with a point and shoot 35mm, and a local lab, could make art more often than most photographers. or a digital camera for that matter. thats what im saying....an artist armed with a cheap digital camera, would make art more often than a photographer with a 4x5 and a nice b/w film.
    I'd have to disagree with you, photography is not like any other art form, in that as a photographer we have to take what is in front of us, and try to make sense of it. With painting and other art forms, everything can come from the artists imagination. The art in photography comes from how the photographer chooses to express what is seen in the lens. The reality is that very few artists have made the transferrence between mediums successfully, and are recognized as photographers. There are some great photographers like Art Wolfe - who studied art in school - but the majority learned either on their own, or through photography schools.

    Of course, as David Bebbington says in his post, some photographers get lost in the technique; mostly B&W photographers (IMO). There is also quite a bit of discussion whether color landscape photography (my genre) can be considered Art or even Fine Art.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  8. #58
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,784
    Quote Originally Posted by stevebarry
    egos, here in this thread.

    ....an artist armed with a cheap digital camera, would make art more often than a photographer with a 4x5 and a nice b/w film.
    Hogwash. Tools aren't art, and don't make an artist. The statement is bullpucky even if you reverse it. The terms "artist" and "photographer" are not mutually exclusive, either. A photographic artist is a much different animal than a painter, or a photographer. Being a painter, doesn't mean you are an artist. Artists are artists, and then they choose and learn their medium, and refine their technique. I am considered by some to be a photographic artist. I'm not arrogant or stupid enough to believe that as an artist I can do better than a studied painter at being artistic with a cheap fingerpaint set, because it is readily usable, and can express colors and patterns with little effort. That doesn't mean I can't produce art with it, but if I understood the medium, I would find my stubs and the butcher paper pretty limiting after a short time, and I'm probably not going to set the world on its ear, either. I might need to learn some things, maybe things, that in my literal infancy as a painter, I am not even aware of.
    The attitude is pretty common in acedamia toward artistic photography, in that it is still a bit of a bastard child, not really understood by some "fine art" teachers, and of course those who confuse accessability, with ability, which is the real arrogance and ignorance, displayed in the referenced thread. What a load of school induced self absorbed unowhat.
    (in regard to the last comment, its not altogether a slam, as I may have taken the same attitude about, oh say 25 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about photogaphy, but thought I knew it all, because I knew more than the guy on the street corner. I am currently in my photographic adolescense.)
    Last edited by JBrunner; 09-14-2006 at 03:55 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #59

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by stevebarry
    i am in school, learning art. i know enough to know very few people really understand what art is. alot of people can tell what is or isnt "art", and maybe talk about it, but most do not understand what it is.
    Are you studying to be an artist or are you learning art theory and history?
    Either way, you surely don't need a degree in it to either understand or appreciate or to practice art - just an open heart an mind. Some things, also, go beyond "understanding"...

    Cate



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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