Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Gimmic or art??  (Read 3506 times)
jerrygrasso96
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81


WWW
« on: March 15, 2009, 08:09:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been enjoying Art Wolfe's discussions here and on his website regarding creating photographs that express rather than represent. Jean Paul Caponigro also discusses the same thing on his website. Alain Briot's latest articles and discussions are also trending toward expression rather than classic representation. But in reading what these artists are doing, how can one tell the difference between a technique used that appears gimmicy and one that actually has become artistic? If I shake my camera or defocus my shot, it seems to me to be my interpretation of a scene as my mind saw it and my heart felt it. There have also been many discussions on this forum regarding the separation between artistic (notice I didn't say abstract!) creations and images that look more like a photographer's mistake. So, at what point does the image colapse into a failed technique and one that has succeded in creating something artistic?
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2009, 03:17:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jerrygrasso96
So, at what point does the image colapse into a failed technique and one that has succeded in creating something artistic?


Simple: at the moment that the ahmm, artist says so. It was ever so.

Rob C
Logged

John R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1047


« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2009, 05:02:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jerrygrasso96
So, at what point does the image colapse into a failed technique and one that has succeded in creating something artistic?
I once attended a slide show by a well known photographer in NAPA and camera club circles and he put the question to the audience, "What makes a good Photograph?" Some said, good composition, impact, good design and other answers. Most people nodded. The presenter said, "Whatever works." This, at first glance may sound glib and cynical, but I think this is true. The same goes for painting or any other art form. Any good photographer will know if the outcome of his technique in any given photograph, whether accidental or deliberate, has resulted in a reasonably good image. So if you tried something and it looks bad or did not accomplish what you intended, then it faiils and you figure something out and try again. It is only gimmicky if someone suggests a given technique or filter is the end all and be all of taking photographs and shows only the same old tired images.

JMR
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2009, 10:40:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Time and patience. It's when you need to know now that you don't get the best answer.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad