Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Eric Meola article  (Read 26437 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3053


« Reply #100 on: January 23, 2013, 04:59:59 PM »
ReplyReply

[Robert Doisneau] Yes, I'd go with that; you're getting the picture!

Let's develop the picture further: I seem to remember that in one of Tim Fitzharris' books, he'd used a reflector to light a yucca plant in the foreground of his landscape photo -- does that active interference show photographic creativity?
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #101 on: January 23, 2013, 05:06:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Premature congratulations, Tony.

I think I can resolve this to everyone's satisfaction by quoting one of my heroes, Jean Loup Sieff: there is no art, only artists.

Slobodan. Not even HC-B claimed that his photography was art; he did though, think of himself primarily as painter/pencil artist. In fact, that was the love to which he returned at the close of his life. If you watch any of the later interviews, you can't but help realise that photography was something he eventually found very boring, if not quite as boring as the questions about it that he constantly found himself fielding. (An extreme example of that boredom can be found in his interview by a queasily sycophantic Charlie Rose.) That his photography is art was something foist upon it/him by the world of curators, publishers and television  crews, and their influence has informed most of the voices I hear here. At the most, from what I can glean from his own words, he thought of his photography as geometry, and I can see the relevance and appropriateness of that thought.

Take consolation from Sieff, as quoted above: we can all think of ourselves as artists, regardless of the cream or the crap that we may or may not produce: everybody wins! True democracy at its very best! I love it.

Rob C

P.S. Afghan Girl. I have no way of knowing how he did the shot; whether he directed her, caught her on the hop or bought her photographic favours. How could I, then, possibly judge?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 05:12:14 PM by Rob C » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #102 on: January 23, 2013, 05:07:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Let's develop the picture further: I seem to remember that in one of Tim Fitzharris' books, he'd used a reflector to light a yucca plant in the foreground of his landscape photo -- does that active interference show photographic creativity?


It shows technique.

Rob C
Logged

Dave (Isle of Skye)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1073


Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.


WWW
« Reply #103 on: January 23, 2013, 05:08:40 PM »
ReplyReply


...I don't see any painter as being relevant to this chat: a painter starts of with a blank canvas and an idea - I trust - and then tries to give that life in a medium that takes huge skill to do it well and that's the first difference you encounter with photography...

Rob C

Hi Rob,

In the past I have given and occasionally sold some of my landscape images to artists/painters (one artist in particular who ran art classes and who became quite a regular customer), he and his class then created oil paintings and water colours fully based on my images. I am sure the artist/painter thought he was being creative when he and his students produced these works, which he then occasionally sold and for which I was happy for him to do so, do you think he was being creative when he painted these pictures based on my images?

Dave
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 05:10:51 PM by Dave (Isle of Skye) » Logged

Fine Art Photography on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info
petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



WWW
« Reply #104 on: January 23, 2013, 05:12:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Rob,

In the past I have given and occasionally sold some of my landscape images to artists/painters (one artist in particular who ran art classes and who became quite a regular customer), he and his class then created oil paintings and water colours fully based on my images. I am sure the artist/painter thought he was being creative when he and his students produced these works, which he then occasionally sold and for which I was happy for him to do so, do you think he was being creative?

Dave
If they copy it no. If they interpret it, yes. Same goes for painting from life.

Peter
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #105 on: January 23, 2013, 05:24:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Rob,

In the past I have given and occasionally sold some of my landscape images to artists/painters (one artist in particular who ran art classes and who became quite a regular customer), he and his class then created oil paintings and water colours fully based on my images. I am sure the artist/painter thought he was being creative when he and his students produced these works, which he then occasionally sold and for which I was happy for him to do so, do you think he was being creative when he painted these pictures based on my images?

Dave



As a kid, I used to trawl art galleries and buy postcards of Monet, Manet, Vincent, Cezanne, Renoir, Dali, the lot of them. I'd then copy those to the best of my ability because I enjoyed doing that. I remember with affection a particularly accurate one of Christ of St John on the Cross. Do you think that I was making art? I don't think that I had that delusion, but it was all so long ago and perhaps I did...

Rob C
Logged

Dave (Isle of Skye)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1073


Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.


WWW
« Reply #106 on: January 23, 2013, 05:32:14 PM »
ReplyReply

If they copy it no. If they interpret it, yes. Same goes for painting from life.

Peter

I refer you to Slobodan's question regarding Cézanne..  Smiley

Dave
Logged

Fine Art Photography on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3053


« Reply #107 on: January 23, 2013, 05:51:46 PM »
ReplyReply

[a reflector to light a yucca plant] -- It shows technique.

So, by active interference, you mostly mean re-arrangement of the objects in the scene into a composition?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 05:54:54 PM by Isaac » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6310


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #108 on: January 23, 2013, 05:52:19 PM »
ReplyReply

So, back to Cézanne. I know there are people who hate to click on provided links. As a public service, I am attaching the cover of that book

What do we see there? If just glancing casually, and without enlarging, we see, of course, a Cézanne. But look closer, and you'll see that the left third is actually a photograph. The rest of the book is full of such examples, of almost photorealistic representation of found reality (again, in terms of viewpoints and elements, not technique). In other words, and as Peter already has pointed out, art/creativity is not about the subject, but its interpretation, and the connection it creates with viewers (i.e., communication).
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 654



WWW
« Reply #109 on: January 23, 2013, 07:22:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Cézanne invented the deconstruction of form which opened the door for cubism. I think that qualifies for a new vision!!!!!

Don't you think?

Peter
Logged

petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



WWW
« Reply #110 on: January 23, 2013, 07:29:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Since I am an artist i would like to share an artist's statement. It's the why an artist's paints.
In this case it's mine.

Peter




Artist's Statement
I am interested in making the simple profound, always searching for that universal moment in the world around us. I draw inspiration for my landscape paintings from many places, but most of it comes from the fields and meadows near my home in rural Pennsylvania along the Delaware River. I used to think that I had to travel far to find interesting motifs, but now I just walk out my door and it's all there.
The abstract marks that I make are used to interpret nature's tangle. Making visual sense and constructing order by structuring shape, form, tone, color and rhythm to create a palpable reality.

I like to visit a motif over and over again. I am especially drawn to the winter landscape. It is a time when the earth loses its leafy covering and reveals it's true self. Covered in snow, the world reflects light and creates a spectrum of colors that are both dramatic and beautiful.

The true subject in any of my paintings is light and how it defines and endlessly changes the landscape around us. For me, light is more than a visual tool, it is an emotional subject. It is through the manipulation of light – how it falls, changes, sculpts, colors and creates various moods on a subject – that intrigues and inspires me.


Peter Fiore
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3053


« Reply #111 on: January 23, 2013, 08:46:59 PM »
ReplyReply

The essence of photographic creativity, in my sense/understanding of the term, is that the photographer has put together something that did not and would not have existed without his active interference in the status quo.
Lets enlarge a bit on this statement and its implications. ...

Just to take your comment as an example of the responses made over the last few days, I think there's a failure to address the point.

I think it will be hard to successfully argue that a landscape photographer is able to exert as much artistic control as Andy Ilachinski when he photographs color-infused reflections from a glass.

I think it will be hard to successfully argue that Ansel Adams was able to exert as much artistic control when he photographed landscapes as when he photographed "Still Life, San Francisco, California (c.1932)".

But it would be nice if someone at least tried, instead of failing to distract Rob C. with issues that are beside the point ;-)
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2162


« Reply #112 on: January 24, 2013, 02:07:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Take consolation from Sieff, as quoted above: we can all think of ourselves as artists, regardless of the cream or the crap that we may or may not produce: everybody wins! True democracy at its very best! I love it.

Not everybody wins.
Everybody can produce art - that is not difficult.
Not everybody can produce good art - that is much more difficult.

Tony Jay
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1743



WWW
« Reply #113 on: January 24, 2013, 03:16:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I've just dusted off the heavy tome 'Art. The Rule Book'.

I quote

(Rule No. 1) There are no rules.

Right, I'm off to Ye Olde Coffee Corner for even more fun.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #114 on: January 24, 2013, 03:18:36 AM »
ReplyReply

So, by active interference, you mostly mean re-arrangement of the objects in the scene into a composition?


Taking your question at face value, often dangerous, I say yes; but I also add this: you can distort any argument to its absurd limit in pursuit of a point.

I do not look upon changing the camera position, if that's the total photographic input, as being 'creative'; as indicated ad nauseam, I see that as fine-tuning what's already there. I've also stated several times that the ability to do that is what I call having a good eye. The two, a good eye and creativity do sometimes run together but not always. I would attempt to illustrate this difference by quoting the ability of the interior designer with that of the discerning client who knows what he wants to achieve, but not how to do it.

In the case of the still life example, I read a certain dismissiveness in some quarters about the simple(?) act of rearranging given objects. That can be a simple matter for a gifted photographer but impossible for one devoid of the gift. And there we touch upon one of the forbidden fruit: few like to accept that much of the ability to be creative (in an artistic sense) is inborn, As someone wrote: poets are born, not made.

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 03:45:36 AM by Rob C » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #115 on: January 24, 2013, 03:24:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I've just dusted off the heavy tome 'Art. The Rule Book'.

I quote

(Rule No. 1) There are no rules.

Right, I'm off to Ye Olde Coffee Corner for even more fun.



Hi Keith,

What's Rule No. 2?

;-)

Rob
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #116 on: January 24, 2013, 03:28:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Not everybody wins.
Everybody can produce art - that is not difficult.Not everybody can produce good art - that is much more difficult.

Tony Jay


Inevitably, Tony, it depends on whose definition one is applying. By some, your statement is absolutely correct; by mine, it's flawed if not downright mistaken. Ping, pong; ping, pong; ping - point!

Heysoos this gets tiring!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #117 on: January 24, 2013, 03:42:41 AM »
ReplyReply

So, back to Cézanne. I know there are people who hate to click on provided links. As a public service, I am attaching the cover of that book

What do we see there? If just glancing casually, and without enlarging, we see, of course, a Cézanne. But look closer, and you'll see that the left third is actually a photograph. The rest of the book is full of such examples, of almost photorealistic representation of found reality (again, in terms of viewpoints and elements, not technique). In other words, and as Peter already has pointed out, art/creativity is not about the subject, but its interpretation, and the connection it creates with viewers (i.e., communication).


More like simulacra, Slobodan. I'm sory, but I think I'm missing the point you want to make here.

Regarding Peter, that's a red herring: as a painter, Peter can hardly avoid being creative by the mere fact of the tools and where he starts and where he goes. That was one of the very first objections against photography-as-art from its beginnings. That much opinion has changed is more to do with conditioning from interested quarters than from any freshly found value intrinsic to the craft of the snap!

Look: you are a photographer; you do some fantastic cityscapes and also some very pleasing pics of your daughter. I think those of your girl are art but those of the city are acute observation. That's not to diminish them in the least - but that I had your eye for city - it's simply that the two fields are different and require different abilities. One is not inferior to the other, just different. Technique, in both genres, is a given.

Rob C
Logged

Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2162


« Reply #118 on: January 24, 2013, 04:01:38 AM »
ReplyReply

...Heysoos this gets tiring!

Rob, with respect, you have been pushing your point of view pretty strongly.
You can move along anytime at your discretion.

Tony Jay
Logged
Dave (Isle of Skye)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1073


Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.


WWW
« Reply #119 on: January 24, 2013, 04:25:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Vermeer and others, according to David Hockney, painted directly over an image created on canvas by a camera obscura (See here for a very interesting documentary discussing this). Vermeer was undeniably a great and creative artist, an old master in fact. But it seems he was in actual fact a very early photographer, only using paint instead of pixels or film to capture exactly what the camera provided for him.

No longer tryig to win or lose points in this discussion, but I just thought I would add this final thought into the mix and for everyones edification - and whilst I am at it, here's an enjoyable but brief passage on "The Truth in Landscape" regarding photography written by Robert Adams.

Dave
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 10:32:57 AM by Dave (Isle of Skye) » Logged

Fine Art Photography on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad