Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,499   Posts: 1,543,228   Online: 1057
      
Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 151920212223242526 LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 253
  1. #241
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,352
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    but Terry Richardson also thinks that cumshots are 'fine art'.

  2. #242

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    but Terry Richardson also thinks that cumshots are 'fine art'.
    Is he paid a professional rate for them?

  3. #243
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,974
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    Is he paid a professional rate for them?
    Yes, good standard. Just like Johnny Knoxville is paid for his work too.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  4. #244

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Sintchak (rich815) View Post
    Yes, good standard. Just like Johnny Knoxville is paid for his work too.
    I don't know what other criteria there is? Professional photography is about differentiating yourself from the opposition to claim a creative, and hence financial, advantage. Every high street has a perfectly competent professional portrait and wedding photographer, with a range of pro kit. Richardson took a calculated creative risk by using a P&S camera to get a certain look, illustrate his disdain for the usual slick standards and separate himself from the herd. I'll wager his daily rate with his T4 was much higher than those jobbing high street pros. AFAIK Richardson didn't take a vow to use a T4 forever, he used it as a strategic career move, and he's remembered for it. I'd call that solid professionalism.

  5. #245
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,749
    Nobody wants my 2 Olympus mju cameras? I can trade it for nikon F or F2 or F3. You get 2 cameras for one !
    Last edited by darkosaric; 08-06-2014 at 12:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #246
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,352
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    I don't know what other criteria there is? Professional photography is about differentiating yourself from the opposition to claim a creative, and hence financial, advantage. Every high street has a perfectly competent professional portrait and wedding photographer, with a range of pro kit. Richardson took a calculated creative risk by using a P&S camera to get a certain look, illustrate his disdain for the usual slick standards and separate himself from the herd. I'll wager his daily rate with his T4 was much higher than those jobbing high street pros. AFAIK Richardson didn't take a vow to use a T4 forever, he used it as a strategic career move, and he's remembered for it. I'd call that solid professionalism.
    It's not so much a case of what tool he uses to get the look he wants. My point was that what he considers to be appropriate is far outside the mainstream. He may have enough talent/self-promotional moxie/what-have-you to pull off selling photos taken with a Yashica T4 to Vogue, and he may have the whatever to call rape photos "art" and sell them, but he's still taking pornographic photos and passing them off as art.

  7. #247

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    It's not so much a case of what tool he uses to get the look he wants. My point was that what he considers to be appropriate is far outside the mainstream. He may have enough talent/self-promotional moxie/what-have-you to pull off selling photos taken with a Yashica T4 to Vogue, and he may have the whatever to call rape photos "art" and sell them, but he's still taking pornographic photos and passing them off as art.
    Where do you draw the line? Is Helmut Newton art or porn? Nobuyoshi Araki? Robert Mapplethorpe? Damned if I know. What I do know is the market value of photographic images has very little connection to the equipment they were taken on.

  8. #248
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,352
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    Where do you draw the line? Is Helmut Newton art or porn? Nobuyoshi Araki? Robert Mapplethorpe? Damned if I know. What I do know is the market value of photographic images has very little connection to the equipment they were taken on.
    I'd draw the line where the courts and the law generally draw the line- inclusion of bodily fluids and/or acts of penetration is legally porn. What that means from a moral standpoint is open to debate - can porn be art? can raw depictions of human sexuality be art?

    To the intersection of Terry Richardson and cheap cameras - can a photograph intentionally made to appear 'amateur' through use of sloppy technique and cheap tools, and therefore 'edgy' in the commercial world, be 'art' or is it an artifice, a put-on, or just great marketing of otherwise mediocre photographic skill? If he were doing it all as an act, and it were all simulated, I'd buy the argument. But he's not- he's actively participating in his photographs, and he's using the photos as an opportunity to take advantage of young women who are not in a position to say no. So I'd say his moral creepiness overrides any artistic integrity his work may have.

  9. #249
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,974
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    Where do you draw the line? Is Helmut Newton art or porn? Nobuyoshi Araki? Robert Mapplethorpe? Damned if I know. What I do know is the market value of photographic images has very little connection to the equipment they were taken on.
    To start with I'd never put Terry Richardson in any category near those others you mention.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  10. #250

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post

    To the intersection of Terry Richardson and cheap cameras - can a photograph intentionally made to appear 'amateur' through use of sloppy technique and cheap tools, and therefore 'edgy' in the commercial world, be 'art' or is it an artifice, a put-on, or just great marketing of otherwise mediocre photographic skill?
    Nearly all photography is a "put-on", with the possible exception of family snaps, and even then people wear their best faces. My wife receives a catalogue for women's clothes on a regular basis, and many of the pictures in it contain flare. I haven't seen a lens achieve/suffer from such lack of contrast for many a year, so I assume the photographer wants to evoke a mood, something it seems to do pretty effectively as parcels arrive from the company on a regular basis. A technical fundamentalist may see this as a flaw, but the photograph does what's required - sell clothes. Perhaps he uses a fogged and scratched up old Barnack, it's hard to say.

    An Ansel Adams picture taken on a plate camera isn't objectively better than a Daido Moriyama taken on a pocket Ricoh, though it's certainly different. Was Adams less mannered with his artificially enhanced filters than Moriyama with his flash gun? Both deceive the viewer's eye to the reality of what was in front of them, both are very good printers, both have their own fans and buyers. A camera is a tool, no more, no less.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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