Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: When is it graphic art?  (Read 31079 times)
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2529


« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2012, 03:12:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Or delusions?!
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2012, 03:27:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Jesus, Cat, where do you find those scenarios?!


Some years ago they sealed off the entrance to the Port here and did some excavating/dredging to make the berths deeper in order to accommodate boats with deeper draughts. As they were working, I think I saw a similar set of propositions floating away on the leakage... often wondered where they fetched up; now I know.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2012, 08:27:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Ah Ken! I never knew/suspected that you, too, believed in my theory of a Golden Age just passed!

Rob C

The Golden Age is always passed when we are passed our Golden Age.

Peter
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2012, 10:24:10 AM »
ReplyReply

The Golden Age is always passed when we are passed our Golden Age.

Peter


Glib, but not necessarily accurate.

I can remember awareness of the understanding of what had already passed even when I was just about a third of the way into my career. It's not all about personal success at all; it has relevace in what went before, what's going down at the moment and, also, what seems to be likely out there in the future.

It doesn't take much thinking to see where prices/rates head at any given moment; you can easily discover the going rates for much the same sort of job, and even the frequency with which such jobs are available - for anyone. There are lots of markers in any business segment to help one discover whether it's on the up or on its uppers instead.

And yes, I do believe that different industries have their moment in life and then, having peaked, fade away to shadows of what they were. Just like people.

Rob C
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1666


« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2012, 03:21:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Unfortunatly, i must disagree with you all.

Using your logic, someone has an idea, walks 5 minutes to a street, does this multiple times, takes absolutley rubbish pics, takes a few minutes to compile, then spends many hours in a computer, creates a piece of art and thats ok.

Then someone plans for over a year, travels 12,000 miles, sits in a hide for days, captures a beautiful image after making multiple in camera and lens adjustments,knows the workings of a camera lens etc  is praised in top of the line pro gold standard magazines.

So using your argument the person who spends time on a computer but cant take a picture may be a better photographer than the person who has takes that in camera shot.
Or, if I may flip your scenario:
Given the choice of an interesting image that speaks to me in its own right (that happens to be created by a boring 25-year old mostly in front of photoshop), and a flat, non-interesting image (but with a highly interesting background involving 25 pounds of gear, 3 years of scouting, and a photographer that was eventually seriously wounded by a rhino), the latter is the best art?

Given the interesting, but not quite-there images of a 50 year old male photographer who has read and practiced the art of photography for decades, and an 18 year old girl who "stumbles" upon the most intriguing, disturbing, evocative scene of our lifetime and for some reason picks up her iPhone and take an image at the exact right time and place, only to never again take an interesting image. Should we dismiss the latter image because it is not "classy" enough?

Is a piece of music based on "sampling" other music, by a person who cannot himself use a musical instrument, of inherently less artistic value than a piece of music created by a person who can use a musical instrument? Is music programmed on a computer inherently lower value than music played on a violin? Even before you get to listen and make a judgement? When Mozart wrote down notes on a piece of paper, was that necessarily better art than some current composer who did something similar in front of a computer sequencer?

I think it boils down to "is the artistic value of art only a matter of inherent properties in the art itself, or does the context in which the art was created add/detract to its artistic value"? The same discussion is present in e.g. literature, and I am sure that anyone who has attended art classes (I have not) will have had some discussions on the topic?

If "photography" is seen as some martial art where the best of the best meet to compare their gear and their ability to use it in painful ways so as to produce images that few others are able and willing to produce, then yes, the method to make those images is relevant. If that is the case, I shall stop photographing and stop viewing photographies immidiately. But if photography is seen as the art of producing realism-inspired (e.g. printed) art with the goal of provoking thought and emotions through any means practically/legally/morally possible, I am back in again.

Perhaps this means that Joe Average will think highly of whatever post-processing trick is hot at the moment (HDR, instamatic, or whatever). Chances are, he will no matter what the artsy people tells him. So the high-culture and the low-culture separates in terms of post-processing preferences, just like they do in most all other aspects of art (and life). Is this because the proclaimed experts have a better education and have spent more time with the subject? Or because Universities and semi-closed "expert" venues are merely reproducing established convetions? Or because the cultural elite has a need to distinguish itself from the masses?

-h
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 03:43:34 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
Mcthecat
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2012, 05:04:30 PM »
ReplyReply

You seem to be missing the point. Im not debating over whether the end product is better than the original image, whether someone takes a picture on a cell phone or a DSLR and creates a most beautifull image anyone will be proud of. My point is this and ill state it again but a bit simpler.

It is now it possible that someone who has not the faintest idea about photography can now win conpetitions, not by the use of a camera but by the use of a computer. Is that possible?

Secondly, as you know the answer to the previous point is yes, does that make that person a great photographer or a great photographic/graphic artist?

Im not kicking the photographic artists, i love Photoshop, its great, i use it, i just dont kid myself or strut around in a deluded world claiming to be a great photographer when the image was created in a computer not in my camera.The pics i adjust are art, the ones i dont are photographs.

Mick
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5534



WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2012, 06:47:39 PM »
ReplyReply

... My point is this and ill state it again but a bit simpler...

Mick, I often commented on your posted photographs with compliments, one of which often was "competent." In other words, you definitely know your way around, both with camera and in post-processing.

And yet, 25 replies later, I am still struggling to figure out what is your point. Many others seem to wonder the same.

- your scenarios are rather convoluted and implausible. Do you have a specific incident in mind or a hypothetical one? If specific, please give us details and links so that we determine the context. If hypothetical, it is highly implausible. You seem to suggest that someone "takes absolutley rubbish pics... then spends many hours in a computer..." and then wins a photographic competition. Unless the competition was about some specific type of fine art (or "fine art"), I can hardly fathom how "absolute rubbish" turns into great photography even if one spends a lifetime on a computer.

- your typos and quick writing do not help either: "It is now it possible..." Is it a question or a statement? If question, why then repeat it in the very next sentence? If question repeated for emphasis, why do you then state in the subsequent paragraph: "...as you know the answer to the previous point is yes..."? Thus I really struggle to figure out whether you are:

- asking rhetorically
- asking for real
- or simply stating

I, for one, would greatly appreciate if you would post links to the case described in your scenarios.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1666


« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2012, 12:56:04 AM »
ReplyReply

It is now it possible that someone who has not the faintest idea about photography can now win conpetitions, not by the use of a camera but by the use of a computer. Is that possible?

Secondly, as you know the answer to the previous point is yes, does that make that person a great photographer or a great photographic/graphic artist?
I dont know the answer to your first question.

For your second point, I dont really care much about labels. You might call me a great photographer, a great photoshopper, or just great. All three will do ;-)

-h
Logged
PDobson
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2012, 04:06:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm reminded of the quote, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a blurry concept."

It seems that the antagonist in this scenario has the opposite problem. He's taking fuzzy photos of an award-winning concept. His solution is then to fulfill that concept through digital means.

If the only question is artistic merit, you need to determine the root of photographic artistry. Is it technical mastery? Adam's quote indicates the he believes it is more than technique. Is photographic art created in the photographer's mind or on the film plane?

I like to separate the concepts of art and craft. Good craftsmanship may be technically impressive, bit it doesn't create an emotional response. I see this all the time in the knifemaking world; there are many smiths creating technically amazing blades that are boring to look at and handle. It's rare and special to see someone create a knife that is unique and beautiful and exciting in a way that goes beyond it's technical merits.

I've never experienced a photographic competition. I don't know if it's a judge of technical  competency, artistic merit, or a combination of the two. I'd personally hope for the latter.

Phillip
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6066



WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2012, 04:34:15 PM »
ReplyReply

It depends on the judge(s), Phillip. Which is why I refuse (almost) to put anything in a juried show. The one exception was last year when there was a show being judged by Steve McCurry, whose work I know and whose judgment I trust.

I've judged a couple shows myself, and I remember that when I got to the end of a segment with which I was having trouble and picked one of two prints that were awfully close, my wife said: "Why did you pick that one?" I had to answer: "Because I like it." My wife had a gallery for ten years, and knew better than to ask that question, but in the end, that's what it always comes down to.
Logged

whiteheat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2012, 06:21:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi All

I have a wider question on this subject.  What is art or what makes art, art?  How can one define art so that one can easily recognise art as art as opposed to ..... well, something that 'looks' like art but isn't?

My rationale for asking this question, besides really wanting to know in any event, is that I would like to proactively create photographic art.  In order to do that, I have to have some way of working out what art is before I can attempt to create something myself.  So, how do I understand what it is that makes something generally recognised as art.

Many thanks for any contributions on the matter.
Logged

Nothing is as it first appears.
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6066



WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2012, 06:34:15 AM »
ReplyReply

OH NO!!! Grin
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2012, 08:17:00 AM »
ReplyReply

OH NO!!! Grin


Screeeeech!

Rob C
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2529


« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2012, 08:18:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi All

I have a wider question on this subject.  What is art or what makes art, art?  How can one define art so that one can easily recognise art as art as opposed to ..... well, something that 'looks' like art but isn't?

My rationale for asking this question, besides really wanting to know in any event, is that I would like to proactively create photographic art.  In order to do that, I have to have some way of working out what art is before I can attempt to create something myself.  So, how do I understand what it is that makes something generally recognised as art.

Many thanks for any contributions on the matter.

I hope you have a long life in front of you in which to contemplate the possibilities? Wink
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2660


« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2012, 01:03:00 PM »
ReplyReply

What is art or what makes art, art?  ... what art is before I can attempt to create something myself.

People quarrel about What is Art?  so much, that even the more quarrelsome individuals are weary of that debate :-)

A widely respected art historian answered your question like this -- "There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists." -- which shifts the focus to what artists are doing:

  • "To make art is to pursue an idea in a visual way... Look at the work of mature contemporary drawing artists and you will see this very process ... all these artists are pursuing and questioning abstract ideas through the vehicle of those images, and so when you look more closely, you will see beyond the images and into the variations of those internal ideas."

    page 176 "Contemporary Drawing: Key Concepts and Techniques" By Margaret Davidson


« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 03:30:06 PM by Isaac » Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131



« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2012, 01:21:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi All

I have a wider question on this subject.  What is art or what makes art, art?  How can one define art so that one can easily recognise art as art as opposed to ..... well, something that 'looks' like art but isn't?

My rationale for asking this question, besides really wanting to know in any event, is that I would like to proactively create photographic art.  In order to do that, I have to have some way of working out what art is before I can attempt to create something myself.  So, how do I understand what it is that makes something generally recognised as art.

Many thanks for any contributions on the matter.

If you have to "work out" out what "art" is before you can create it, whatever you create accordingly will not be art, no matter what you do.  Not meaning to be rude, but IMO, art is something that springs from within, not something that conforms to some external standard.  Lacking that inspiration from the soul, it cannot be art by definition.  Do what you are compelled to do, and let the chips fall where they may.
Logged

WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1150


« Reply #36 on: October 11, 2012, 02:42:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Do what you are compelled to do, and let the chips fall where they may.

Bravo!!
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6066



WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 11, 2012, 03:25:15 PM »
ReplyReply

  • "To make art is to pursue an idea in a visual way..."

Easy there, Isaac. Not all art is visual, and that respected art historian should have known that.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2660


« Reply #38 on: October 11, 2012, 03:28:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Not all art is visual, and that respected art historian should have known that.

Oh careless reader, that respected art historian did not say all art is visual ;-)

(I'll reformat to prevent others making the same mistake.)


Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6066



WWW
« Reply #39 on: October 11, 2012, 03:31:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe not, but she surely said it in your excerpt.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad