Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,469   Posts: 1,644,124   Online: 827
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    653
    I have an Uncle who lives in Vienna. The Albertina had a juried show once and my Uncle sent them an envelope with three nails, a piece of string, and instructions on how to nail the nails into a board and loop the string around them. It was accepted.

    As far as photography goes, my internal joke is that I only overcam my frustrations with it once I began to see it as performance art. That's a joke, yes, but there's an element of truth to it.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,627
    Images
    154
    ART is an instinct fallowed by the intestinal fortitude to perservere. How that happens is up to the person with the initial instinct. (thought) Everybody has ideas, few have a driving need or ability to see them to the end. To their own satisfaction.
    Stop trying to get into my mind, There is nothing there!

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    What if a person thinks about something, and tells no one. Is he still an "artist".

    Is the defining action the thinking, or the making. If it is just the thinking, then being an artist is completely irrelevant. Almost everyone thinks of stuff all day. Everyone is an "artist". It all means nothing.

    As my Sensei, Donald would say, "Art is just like water flowing through your fingers, you might know what it is but you can't grasp it."


    When you can snatch the pebble from my hand then it is....
    .........
    .............


    Michael
    Michael,

    My friend you are gasping in the ether...I am overcome with your wisdom.

  4. #24
    KenM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    800
    I participated in a show recently where the largest number of prints were put up by a fellow who neither developed his own film, nor printed them himself. His reason? Takes too much time. He prefers to hunt out places and fill rolls of film with images.

    Is he an artist? While his persistence in finding interesting spots to photograph is admirable, I don't think it's enough to qualify him as an artist. After all, he's only performing the first step in a long process...

    I don't have a problem with someone not developing their own negatives. Really, when it comes down to it, developing negatives is by necessity a mechanical process. All decisions regarding development are made when you take the image - when you develop a negative, you're just 'going through the motions' - they're careful motions, but 'motions' nontheless.

    However, I do have a serious problem with him not printing his own work. How can someone other than yourself print your negatives and even approach what your initial visualization was? Even if you're standing beside the guy making the print, it's difficult (if not impossible) to dictate your vision and have someone else print it on paper for you.

    Me? I make my own negatives, develop my own negatives, and print my own negatives. I also throw out my own prints since they're not good enough! Aritst? I've never been comfortable calling myself an artist. I'll stick with photographer.
    Cheers!

    -klm.

  5. #25
    127
    127 is offline
    127's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    uk
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    581
    Taking this one step further, what about the photographer who doesnt "take" their own pictures? Cindy Sherman for example is famous for her "self" portraits, and hires an assistant to actually press the button. Though her latter stuff is rather tedious conceptual stuff, some of her earlier work is definatly interesting. Is the photographer the person who takes the photograph?

    To throw in another random point, an Adams print actually printed by the man costs $10,000. You can have an identical print, made from the same neg with the same process, printed by someone else for $200. Clearly some people think the photograher is the person who made the print.

    Finally - to throw out every thought I have without making any logical argument: Jackson Pollock said that art was the process of selection. I would say that photography is pure selection (and by extension pure art!). A photograph can't show whats not there, but it makes it's point by selecting a part of whats there, and choosing how to present it.

    Ian

  6. #26
    Mateo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hollister, Ca
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    496
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    There is a long tradition in visual arts of the artist not making the final print. In lithography, and often with etchings, a printer is employed to make the print for the artist. This is because the printer has greater skill with the techniques needed to ensure a good print. This does not detract from either the work as being art, or the person who made the original image (on a plate or stone) as being an artist. Why should photography be any different than other forms of graphic expression in this respect?
    This is true. And guess who owns the copyrights after the edition has been made. Not the party with the original concept.

  7. #27
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,519
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Mateo
    This is true. And guess who owns the copyrights after the edition has been made. Not the party with the original concept.
    I must be missing something here. According to the copyright laws, the copyright is created at, and the originator owns the copyright from the conception of the work, unless it is specifically transferred. There is only one exception that I can think of, offhand, and that is in the case of "Work For Hire"- narrowly and and contracturally defined as such.

    What am I missing ... something about an "edition"?
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    8
    “Whether or not photography and art are the same thing is beside the point, since art resides not in a technique but in a knowing application of insight.
    The problem, then, is not whether photography can be art, but in confusing art with the finished product or the technique employed. It is the artist's psychological attitude toward the process of creation alone that signifies the artistic validity of the act that produces the "work of art.”
    As Coomarasway once said, "Art is nothing tangible. We cannot call a painting "art." As the words "artifact" and "artificial" imply, the thing made is a work of art, made by art, but not itself art; the art remains in the artist and is the knowledge by which things are made. What is made according to the art is correct; what one makes as one likes may very well be awkward. We must not confuse taste with judgment, or loveliness with beauty, for as Augustine says, some people like deformities." ...............William John Smith, 1980

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    965
    Images
    58
    It's very hard to disagree with Mr. Willam John Smith. If we want to define the artist, we have to define what ART is...
    Therein lies the problem, since if we take Smith's view of it, we are defining art to be an imaterial (sp?) essence, much like Plato's notions of absolute values. They exist, somewhere (everywhere?) out there, and only what takes part of the absolute beauty is truly beautiful. In the same way, only what takes part of the ABSOLUTE ART is truly a work of art.
    This is very much the approach I have seen art professors and students take.
    Either that or "it's art if I say so, dangit!"
    As much as both of these theories might be true, none of them are particularly usefull... And I personally don't buy either.

    What, then, is art?
    We know that some photography is art, but not every photograph is art. the same goes for painting, singing, etc...
    Okay, then what IS art?
    Well, I don't know, but if no one objects, I'll post back later, once my brain is throughly fried...

    By the way, sorry for the long post, I had a philosophy class today, and my brain is working that way right now.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    405
    Images
    7
    Enough theory,

    I'll make a statement.

    I'm an artist who is sometimes only a photographer. I'm certainly a craftsman (although those who have seen my rhumba film agitation method may call that assertation into question) and occasionally I create concepts that I pass onto other people to create.

    What's all this mean? I couldn't care less. I'm too busy having fun.

    bump

    PS Poco.. I like the performance art photography... Sometimes I think me using my 4x5 must look like an interpretive dance to onlookers.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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