Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Fine Art Photography Top 16  (Read 22014 times)
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #80 on: January 10, 2012, 03:01:37 PM »
ReplyReply

<snip>There is always context (direction) to commissioned work. [John Replies: No, there isn't.] Works by fashion (Avadon), commercial (Bourke-White), and documentary (FSA) photographers are also considered "Fine Art" even though there was an art director behind them. [John replies: No, it's not. That's why their exhibitions of commercial art is always labeled, "commercial art" or "documentary." But, some of them also do fine art, that's not directed. And his name is spelled "Avedon."] And you don't know much about art direction either. [John replies: Yes, I do. I've worked in the media, in one form or another, since 1968.] Your craft/fine art dichotomy is a false one. [John replies: No, it's not. Though some people, usually poor artist/craftsmen, would like it to be.] Excuse me, but that's so dumb that it gives me a headache; the only real cure is to get out and start trying to work as an artist. [John replies: I do that, both as an artist and craftsman. And do quite well at it, if I do say so myself.]
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #81 on: January 10, 2012, 03:46:31 PM »
ReplyReply

What is it about people that, ultimately, almost everything degenerates into 'I said - he said - I said' into the friggin' sunset?

I've just watched a rerun of the story of the glory-days of the Clyde shipbuilding industry. Depressing stuff and a huge mixture of optimism, pessimism, but hardly anything to be heard about the overarching reality: ships are of the past, and by the looks of it, not only on the Clyde. The photographic parallels are pretty clear: entire companies and trained workers out on the scrap heap. And who to blame? Nobody, really, because that's the march of life - the beat of progress, the cemetery-filling crunch of change. The only way to stop it is to freeze time by some international pact to stop progress here and now. It can't be done. It's not in the nature of Man to co-operate like that, and change is written into the fabric of everything.

So where does art fit in all of this? Why would anyone care whether a snapper is an artist, a craftsman, just a camera operator or all three? It's all so damned irrelevant in the greater scheme of things; a discussion but a pastime in the lives of those with nothing better to do, like us, as far as I can see. And much of it turns to dust, just as did my lunch today: I decided to eat out instead of do my own thing so many days in a row; the usual, familiar places were closed and I opted to try a spot I'd always walked straight past. I should have continued walking. And to think there were great days (and lunches!), once upon a time!

The BBC does another show that's gripping, if you can forgive the presenter: it's all about railway journeys of the British past. It takes you to towns once famous for this, that or the other, the very reasons that the railroads were created to reach them (and vice versa), and much of the original raison d'ętre there, too, has vanished. It's evolution on a visible timescale, visible within the compass of a single life, much of it. And yes, plenty of industrial art there too, now redundant.

Perhaps the last sign of Man on Earth will be a bloody museum filled with his art.

Rob C
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2781


« Reply #82 on: January 10, 2012, 06:35:54 PM »
ReplyReply

What is it about people that, ultimately, almost everything degenerates into 'I said - he said - I said' into the friggin' sunset?
It's the not being even slightly curious about the other person or what the other person wishes to say.

Although the outmoded language detracts from the statement, I agree with the sentiment expressed by Samuel Taylor Coleridge - "Until you understand a writer's ignorance, presume yourself ignorant of his understanding." (I don't claim that's how I usually act.)

Once you've self-identified as a Fine Art Photographer discussion of what that might mean is too easily interpreted as an attack on who you are - rather than yet another example of a phrase validly meaning different things to different people, different things in different contexts.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 08:07:29 PM by Isaac » Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #83 on: January 10, 2012, 06:44:10 PM »
ReplyReply



You are a bee charmer. (And you don't know simple coding.) It seems your only argument is to try offend the messenger. I really was never very impressed with that kind of paternalistic bullying.

The problem with your opinion is the world seems to have a different idea--there are many examples that do not fit your simple model. When your hypothesis does not fit the reality, it is not the reality that is wrong.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #84 on: January 10, 2012, 07:57:28 PM »
ReplyReply

<snip> When your hypothesis does not fit the reality, it is not the reality that is wrong.

That's one thing we completely agree on.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #85 on: January 12, 2012, 05:40:37 AM »
ReplyReply

When your hypothesis does not fit the reality, it is not the reality that is wrong.

I'm not so sure about that. To claim that reality is either right or wrong requires an absolutely certain knowledge of what reality is.

What this thread has taught us so far is that no-one appears to really know what even 'art' is, so how the heck can you guys know what reality is!  Grin
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #86 on: January 12, 2012, 12:02:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not so sure about that. To claim that reality is either right or wrong requires an absolutely certain knowledge of what reality is.

What this thread has taught us so far is that no-one appears to really know what even 'art' is, so how the heck can you guys know what reality is!  Grin



They don't Ray; only I know what it is. Oh, and maybe Eric on a good day. Russ will simply take a quick shot of it and see if it has hands or not...

;- )

Rob C
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7910



WWW
« Reply #87 on: January 12, 2012, 04:14:46 PM »
ReplyReply



They don't Ray; only I know what it is. Oh, and maybe Eric on a good day. Russ will simply take a quick shot of it and see if it has hands or not...

;- )

Rob C
Absolutely. But I'm not always certain when a day is a good one.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2781


« Reply #88 on: January 12, 2012, 06:22:03 PM »
ReplyReply

To claim that reality is either right or wrong requires an absolutely certain knowledge of what reality is.

We can stop well short of that - "it is not the reality that is wrong" because right and wrong are not properties we ascribe to "reality" (whatever that is).

When people speak from the facts of their experience, it shouldn't be too surprising when they disagree - it shouldn't be too surprising that their experience was different and provided them with different facts.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #89 on: January 13, 2012, 05:56:53 AM »
ReplyReply

We can stop well short of that - "it is not the reality that is wrong" because right and wrong are not properties we ascribe to "reality" (whatever that is).

When people speak from the facts of their experience, it shouldn't be too surprising when they disagree - it shouldn't be too surprising that their experience was different and provided them with different facts.

Okay! I'll rephrase that for you. "To claim that a perception of reality is right or wrong requires an absolutely certain knowledge of what reality is."
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2781


« Reply #90 on: January 13, 2012, 02:24:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay! I'll rephrase that for you.

Was I being too literal, too pedantic?

Seems to me that you've chosen a very literal reading of - "When your hypothesis does not fit the reality, it is not the reality that is wrong." - and then switched context away from a quarrel about how the phrase "Fine Art Photography" has been used and should be used.

I don't think the quarrel, or that statement, was about the ultimate nature of reality.

So if we're going to rephrase their words, let's do so in a way that might shed light on why there's a quarrel, and what's stopping the quarrel being an argument - When your hypothesis does not fit [my] reality, it is not [my] reality that is wrong.


(But if you wish to pursue the philosophy seminar: note that logically we can make false claims, and note that perceptions can be contradicted by other perceptions without "absolutely certain knowledge of what reality is".)
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 02:33:52 PM by Isaac » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad