Interesting points, I'm always looking to keep grain to a minimum, I don't like it in my own work neven when I shoot 35mm.
Originally Posted by markbarendt
But I mentioned Salgado because having seen quite a bit of his work, in a Solo exhibition and other major shows, think that he's a photographer who's image making is based on a good use of craft so that despite being 35mm the works well even quite large. I guess I also put the type of work Sagado shoots in context with the work of others working in that sector.
To me Salgado's images hold up well individually but together as a body of work become even stronger (as Bob Carnie says as well).
About 20 years ago I saw a major Exhibition of Don McCullin's work at the RPS Gallery in Bath (UK). 2 photographers were nit-picking very close up about the technique & quality of the images, they didn't care at all that the images were of staving Biafran's or dead and wounded soldiers, they were emotionally dead as humans.
technique to Art??
In today's world it is few who take the time to master anything well
The Zen analogy is well taken;chop 500 cords of wood and you may become a master woodchopper...but there are no guarantees of that either
what may be learned is in the actual "doing"; that is what separates the master from the student
At some point there is a realization of coming into your own; it may take days,years or decades but it will happen if one is persistent
if one does not have a firm basis of the rudiments of craft there will be hope of mastering the art; please go and learn from the others who have gone before you by going to the museum or galleries and "seeing" their photographs
Again, linking art to a complete mastery of craft. Even suggesting that art is in the craft.
I cannot disagree more, i think.
How about (for starters) Ian's emotion?
(Biafra, Ian? Would that not date it quite a bit before 20 years ago?)
Oh, what the heck?! I'll throw it out in the open: ;)
While a minimum of craft is required, no amount of mastery of any craft will transform you into a person with a fair grasp of reality and an ability to do and say something interesting.
Anyone who seeks art in the mastery of craft is wasting his or her time. Become a 'well rounded person' (to oversimplify), and you're half way there.
Originally Posted by Q.G.
The McCullin Exhibition was a retrospective, right back to his earliest images through to Somerset landscapes.
There is Craft in Art, but craft itself doesn't make art. Craft is just the means, the mental application of the tools, creativity is something else.
So good craft is what you base creativity on top of, and expand from.
It's just luck otherwise with a far higher failure rate. Good understanding, knowledge and application of craft allows you to get the images regardless of the situation.
As to emotion, art is about putting you self, your soul and emotion into the creative process.
Craft and mastering it shouldn't be obsessive, with fims it's about nailing down personal film speeds, and developing times, knowing how to cope in higher/lower contrast situations, common sense choices of films for different circumstances, it's getting the best out of your materials, and being able to achieve what you want when you press the shutter to make an image - being confident it'll work.
i never understand why people insist that there is a craft to using a camera, processing + printing ... it is technique and skill.
once one understands the technique and modifies it to fit their own needs, and improvises, it becomes "art".
is it a "craft" because it is made by hand ?? sorry for my confusion ...
barry, it seems that you are getting close. once you have your technical "stuff"
running in the background and don't think about it, you will be able to "do what you want"
I think the confusion is not yours. (But you know that.)
Originally Posted by jnanian
It would appear that very many confuse being able to do something well and showing that they mastered a skill (craft) with art.
They are, of course, two entirely different things.
I think this is an excellent discussion!!!! Many great valid points being made. This what I hoped would happen.
I think you hit it right on the head.
Originally Posted by juan
Patrick, my young friend, you have become wiser than some several times your age.:D
Originally Posted by Ektagraphic
I get what you are saying, but the way I see it, the amount of technique one needs to learn in order to get started with expressing concepts with the camera is minimal; much, much, much more minimal than almost any other artistic medium, IMO. The basic techniques take about a day to explain to a group of students (composing, how shutter speeds and apertures affect the picture, exposure, how light meters work and how to use them, focusing, depth of field). Then it is just a little practice, and you can start expressing concepts visually. The great (and terrible) thing about photography is that you can do a whole lot with it if you have just a little bit of very basic information.
So, I think there is an initial technical hurdle that takes just a little bit of understanding and practice, but after that, most of the visual vocabulary is complete, and there are just bits and pieces to learn as you go on practicing.
I believe "artistry" is mainly something that is a characteristic of a person, and has little to do with medium or technique. These things simply hone and focus ones artistry. I don't think that you can become an artist just because you start using a medium that is used for making art.