Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: the view from my new home  (Read 9045 times)
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2010, 09:19:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred,

Good point. Picasso started with very "classical" paintings and portraits.

He did not do cubism when he just started!  Only much later, after moving to Paris, meeting other painters, talking with them, engaging in an exchange of views on where painting was going at the time, being influenced by their ideas and forming his own vision did he start doing what he is now known for.

He is not alone in this approach.  Most artists follow this pattern.  The most famous paintings by Monet are the last ones he created for example.  Same with Van Gogh (there's an iPhone/iPad app called VanGogh HD that shows his work in chronological fashion by the way. Recommended to study this point and only 99 cents if I remember well).

It's a mistake to think you can start by doing something unique. Most everyone starts by doing something that has been done before.  The first goal is to do that which has been done before well.  Then the next goal is to go further that what has been done so far.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 09:38:57 AM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2010, 09:41:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes Alain.

Ironically, the most free mind people, real artists I had the chance to meet so far in my life had very much respect for being inspired by their masters.
And most of the time, I speak with breakrulers or posers that present themselves as truth artists and they are clones of the dj vu.

I think that following the master skills is the best way to obtain freedom and proper powerfull style.
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2010, 09:54:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred and Alain,
I understand what you are both saying about skills. As my ability as a writer has progressed, I've found that my writing has improved greatly when reading the "great authors." It's not so much dissecting how to say this or that; rather it's  being influenced by an author's sense of rhythm, phrasing, contextual use of creating imagery. I haven't copied an author's subject matter or his words at all; I've internalized successful ways of putting words on the page.

May this be what you both speak of; may it be the result of acquainting oneself with the masters? The internalization of skills which can free one to concentrate, not on method, but on expression of an inner vision?

I am a very visual person. I make word images of those pictures I cannot seem to resolve with my camera. I've never thought of myself as being a visual arts creator, nor have I wanted to be successful at that until now. It makes sense to me that just as I've immersed myself with the great authors and felt their influence in my writing, I also need to do that photographically.

Thank you both for pointing this out.
Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2010, 10:47:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
Fred and Alain,
I understand what you are both saying about skills. As my ability as a writer has progressed, I've found that my writing has improved greatly when reading the "great authors." It's not so much dissecting how to say this or that; rather it's  being influenced by an author's sense of rhythm, phrasing, contextual use of creating imagery. I haven't copied an author's subject matter or his words at all; I've internalized successful ways of putting words on the page.

May this be what you both speak of; may it be the result of acquainting oneself with the masters? The internalization of skills which can free one to concentrate, not on method, but on expression of an inner vision?

I am a very visual person. I make word images of those pictures I cannot seem to resolve with my camera. I've never thought of myself as being a visual arts creator, nor have I wanted to be successful at that until now. It makes sense to me that just as I've immersed myself with the great authors and felt their influence in my writing, I also need to do that photographically.

Thank you both for pointing this out.

Shutterpup,

Yes, this is what we (Fred and I) are talking about.  I believe that we desire to create that which we admire.  We want to learn how someone made something that enthralls us, something that gives us pleasure, or excitement, or crates any other emotional response.

Learning takes place when we admire and study works that have an emotional impact upon us.  But this takes longer than studying with a master, someone who is where we want to be, because when studying on our own we have to "decipher" the work, figure out how it was created. Deconstruct it in a way.  As Jacques Derrida explains in his deconstruction theory, by deconstructing a text (and any work of art by extension) we engage in a "reconstruction" of this text, in a rewriting of the "text", in our own words, in our own images, in our own way.    By studying with a master, we receive help in deconstructing the work.  Because the master already knows how the work was created, he can explain how we can go about creating it ourselves.  We save time, lots of time.  

I asked once one of my teachers, when studying at the Beaux Arts in Paris, why I needed to be in a school where all we did all day was painting and drawing, something which I could do at home just as well.  the answer I received was that, indeed, I could do all this at home.  However, it would take me many more years to get where I would get in a couple of years working at the beaux arts with the help of teachers and with the examples of other students.  The same can be said, by extension, about photography workshops or other schools of art.

This is, in a nutshell, the process we go through when we learn how to copy the work of the masters. We have to get rid of the guilt assotiated with creating a copy of someone else's work.  We are not creating a copy.  We are deconstructing then reconstructing a text, an image, or any work of art we want to learn how to create.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 10:51:17 AM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2010, 11:08:16 AM »
ReplyReply

You where in the Beaux-Arts de Paris ?

I was there in 91 if my memory does not fail.
Worked with Claude Viallat (from support-surfaces mouvement) that was in the Nmes Fines Arts before.
Then the german photographer Balthazar Burkhard.

I do miss the Seine border and the cafe terrasse from time to time.
That was great fun.

We used to end-up the nights in la Bastille and sometimes in a disco called "les bains douches".
Serge Gainsbourg and Jacques Dutronc where haunting these places completly drunk, and the policemen bringing them back at their home...
Unthinkable nowdays.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 11:11:57 AM by fredjeang » Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2010, 11:11:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I was there in the late 70's early 80's :-)
Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2010, 11:13:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Lucky, I think I did just knew the very end of the good days.
Just enough to distract myself too much  

Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #47 on: May 15, 2010, 12:05:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: alainbriot
Shutterpup,

Yes, this is what we (Fred and I) are talking about.  I believe that we desire to create that which we admire.  We want to learn how someone made something that enthralls us, something that gives us pleasure, or excitement, or crates any other emotional response.

Learning takes place when we admire and study works that have an emotional impact upon us.  But this takes longer than studying with a master, someone who is where we want to be, because when studying on our own we have to "decipher" the work, figure out how it was created. Deconstruct it in a way.  As Jacques Derrida explains in his deconstruction theory, by deconstructing a text (and any work of art by extension) we engage in a "reconstruction" of this text, in a rewriting of the "text", in our own words, in our own images, in our own way.    By studying with a master, we receive help in deconstructing the work.  Because the master already knows how the work was created, he can explain how we can go about creating it ourselves.  We save time, lots of time.  

I asked once one of my teachers, when studying at the Beaux Arts in Paris, why I needed to be in a school where all we did all day was painting and drawing, something which I could do at home just as well.  the answer I received was that, indeed, I could do all this at home.  However, it would take me many more years to get where I would get in a couple of years working at the beaux arts with the help of teachers and with the examples of other students.  The same can be said, by extension, about photography workshops or other schools of art.

This is, in a nutshell, the process we go through when we learn how to copy the work of the masters. We have to get rid of the guilt assotiated with creating a copy of someone else's work.  We are not creating a copy.  We are deconstructing then reconstructing a text, an image, or any work of art we want to learn how to create.

I really think that these 2 sentences resume perfectly all the process.
I'm 100% on line with Alain.

Regards.
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2010, 12:22:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
I really think that these 2 sentences resume perfectly all the process.
I'm 100% on line with Alain.

Regards.

I can see that that makes sense.

The words below were copied out of the thread here titled "Driftwood" and is attributed to John R Smith if I'm not mistaken. I thought these words summed up another angle on what we're discussing here:

 "But I tend to take pictures like this too, I see something and think "Brilliant! That's great", get the shot, but then on reflection realise that simple chunks of nature are not in themselves great pictures. The truth is we have to do more than just 'capture' the landscape or the world out there. We have to DO something to it - and I don't mean mess about with it for hours in Photoshop - we have to transform it with a personal vision somehow. Which may mean waiting days for the best light, or the perfect sky, or 'walking the shot' looking for better angles, or just plain being ready when something magic happens."
Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2010, 12:39:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
I can see that that makes sense.

The words below were copied out of the thread here titled "Driftwood" and is attributed to John R Smith if I'm not mistaken. I thought these words summed up another angle on what we're discussing here:

 "But I tend to take pictures like this too, I see something and think "Brilliant! That's great", get the shot, but then on reflection realise that simple chunks of nature are not in themselves great pictures. The truth is we have to do more than just 'capture' the landscape or the world out there. We have to DO something to it - and I don't mean mess about with it for hours in Photoshop - we have to transform it with a personal vision somehow. Which may mean waiting days for the best light, or the perfect sky, or 'walking the shot' looking for better angles, or just plain being ready when something magic happens."

Yes, this does make sense but it points to another aspect of creating art and that is the difference between literal and subjective representations, i.e. the difference between what the camera captures which is a literal representation and what the artist sees and creates which is a subjective representation.  Art is by nature subjective, therefore we have to change what the camera captures or we are left with a documentative record, not with art.

This is an entirely different discussion than what we are talking about here which is the process of developing a personal style.  It is assumed when you start on the path towards developing a personal style that the topic of literal vs subjective representations has already been covered.

If you look back at the modifications I made to your photograph, these point to how I subjectively see the scene.  I turned it into something quite different than the literal capture created by the camera by removing elements, modifying colors, increasing saturation levels, changing contrast levels and altering the format by vertical stretching.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 12:53:16 PM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #50 on: May 15, 2010, 01:06:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: alainbriot
Yes, this does make sense but it points to another aspect of creating art and that is the difference between literal and subjective representations, i.e. the difference between what the camera captures which is a literal representation and what the artist sees and creates which is a subjective representation.  Art is by nature subjective, therefore we have to change what the camera captures or we are left with a documentative record, not with art.

This is an entirely different discussion than what we are talking about here which is the process of developing a personal style.  It is assumed when you start on the path towards developing a personal style that the topic of literal vs subjective representations has already been covered.

If you look back at the modifications I made to your photograph, these point to how I subjectively see the scene.  I turned it into something quite different than the literal capture created by the camera by removing elements, modifying colors, increasing saturation levels, changing contrast levels and altering the format by vertical stretching.

So Alain, forgive if I'm dense. Do you feel the subjective representation is actually a manipulation(not a dirty word)after the camera has done its best with the settings that have been input to get the literal representation as close as possible to your personal vision?
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #51 on: May 15, 2010, 01:10:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: alainbriot
Yes, this does make sense but it points to another aspect of creating art and that is the difference between literal and subjective representations, i.e. the difference between what the camera captures which is a literal representation and what the artist sees and creates which is a subjective representation.  Art is by nature subjective, therefore we have to change what the camera captures or we are left with a documentative record, not with art.

As the person who was quoted here, I would like to clarify my position - I don't necessarily agree that "we have to change what the camera captures", although I often will. Some of the pictures which please me the most I simply printed, because I got it right in camera.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 15, 2010, 01:11:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
So Alain, forgive if I'm dense. Do you feel the subjective representation is actually a manipulation(not a dirty word)after the camera has done its best with the settings that have been input to get the literal representation as close as possible to your personal vision?


I have an essay about this subject on this site at this link:
Just Say Yes essay

It is best you read it first, unless you have already, otherwise I'd basically repeat what I wrote in it.

Regarding whether this represents manipulation or not is basically for you to decide.  For me, the changes I make to my images represent my subjective representation of the scene, my goal being to re-create visually in the image my original emotional experience of the scene.  Without making the changes I listed previously, and more, I would not be able to create the photographs that I want to create.  

In regards to your work, you need to decide what your views on this subject are.  For me, what the camera captures alone is far from representing my emotional response to the scenes that I photograph.  I need to modify the image captured by the camera in order to show what I saw.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 01:17:40 PM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #53 on: May 15, 2010, 01:20:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: alainbriot
I have an essay about this subject on this site at this link:
Just Say Yes essay

It is best you read it first, unless you have already, otherwise I'd basically repeat what I wrote in it.

Regarding manipulation or not this is basically for you to decide.  For me, the changes I make to my images represent my subjective representation of the scene, my goal being to re-create visually in the image my original emotional experience of the scene.  Without making the changes I listed previously, and more, I would not be able to create the photographs that I want to create.

Alain,
Thanks for the link. I'll read and be back.

"In regards to your work, you need to decide what your views on this subject are.  For me, what the camera captures alone is far from representing my emotional response to the scenes that I photograph.  I need to modify the image captured by the camera in order to show what I saw."  

And this is what I'm finding with my own photos.



Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 15, 2010, 01:25:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
Alain,
Thanks for the link. I'll read and be back.

"In regards to your work, you need to decide what your views on this subject are.  For me, what the camera captures alone is far from representing my emotional response to the scenes that I photograph.  I need to modify the image captured by the camera in order to show what I saw."  

And this is what I'm finding with my own photos.

These decisions are part of defining your own style. But, you do need to learn a style first.  You need to acquire the technical foundations that are necessary for quality work.
Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #55 on: May 15, 2010, 01:26:53 PM »
ReplyReply

When I was in fine arts, I did assistant job with a master call Balthazar Burkhard.
He was not teaching in a traditional way, but using what in some secret societies they call: "showing objects" or "objects showned",
that means that he was just doing what he would have done with us. Teaching was the action itself.

At that time I was very involved into large formats, but the lab was problematic: could not find the way to develop properly at that sizes.

Balthazar was doing really huge formats. He did that with a poultry feed. I had the solution I was looking for. It would have took me a lot of hassle
to find it by myself. Lot of lost time and energy. Just being next to the master, many things happen, many answers are answered.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 01:28:14 PM by fredjeang » Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 15, 2010, 01:27:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John R Smith
As the person who was quoted here, I would like to clarify my position - I don't necessarily agree that "we have to change what the camera captures", although I often will. Some of the pictures which please me the most I simply printed, because I got it right in camera.

John


This implies you correct images only when you did not get it right in the camera.  Personally, I never get it right in the camera, in the sense that there is always a difference between what I saw and experienced and what the camera captured.  How could it be otherwise?  The camera is a machine, unable of experiencing and recording feelings and emotions the way we do.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 01:28:27 PM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 15, 2010, 01:29:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Just being next to the master, many things happen, many answers are answered.

That's a great statement.
Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #58 on: May 15, 2010, 01:47:13 PM »
ReplyReply

It is a very passionate topic, that I'll have to leave at that point because I'm going out.
In Spain, they had a very interesting political debate:
They realised that the economic machine had fired the older people into a useless corner of the society. They did their task and now are useless.
But then, they started to ask themselves this question: are we loosing valuable knowledge?
So they started a plan to integrate the older people into a sort of program, so they can be active transmiting their particular knowledge (could be a craftman, a pilot, a printer...whatever). The results are spectacular among the youngest generations.

I have to leave you.

Cheers to all.
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #59 on: May 15, 2010, 01:47:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: alainbriot
This implies you correct images only when you did not get it right in the camera.  Personally, I never get it right in the camera, in the sense that there is always a difference between what I saw and experienced and what the camera captured.  How could it be otherwise?  The camera is a machine, unable of experiencing and recording feelings and emotions the way we do.

Well, Alain, I really hesitate to question you on this issue, because I have followed your contributions here on LL for a very long time and have always respected your work and your opinions. But, as you know, many many photographers shot transparency film for years (including myself, on 6x6), for publication as magazine covers, calenders, or for projection (in my case as well) for lectures and illustrated talks. And with an Ektachrome you cannot crop, burn, or dodge, or alter the colour balance. You have to get it right in camera. It seems to me that I still managed to take some pretty decent photographs back then, nonetheless.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad