Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: This needs to be read  (Read 14137 times)
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 880


WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2013, 03:38:26 PM »
ReplyReply


Or take the advice: when in a hole, stop digging!

;-)

Rob C
Is there an app for that Rob?
;-)
Logged

Robert55
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2013, 04:30:46 PM »
ReplyReply

like the guy from the article, you also do not explain why an increase in volume would lead to a decrease in the top quality
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2013, 07:37:02 PM »
ReplyReply

No not sour grapes.
Seriously try to call any of that art and I'll laugh you off the forum!
I don't envy someone with no talent. It's a sign of how ridiculous our society can be, and for some reason we accept it.

Shock tactics doesn't = good. I could for example take photos of excrement in various forms in a toilet, in the street, from humans and other creatures. And I could hold an exhibition with gallery prints of these. It would certainly be unique, and novel. It would also be in poor taste.
I could not in honestly say that would make me a great photographer, even if some rich fool sponsored me to continue taking such pictures.

Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2769


« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2013, 07:57:55 PM »
ReplyReply

and I'll laugh you off the forum!

Please proceed.

And I could hold an exhibition with gallery prints of these. It would certainly be unique, and novel.

I haven't checked for photos, but probably not unique or novel.

I could not in honestly say that would make me a great photographer...

It would make you a shit photographer.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2013, 02:30:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Please proceed.

I haven't checked for photos, but probably not unique or novel.

It would make you a shit photographer.


Well, we've already had 'art' from elephant crap. Not to mention the ten-thousand-quid pile of Tate bricks.

Rob C
Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2013, 02:58:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Please proceed.


http://www.damienhirst.com/11-sausages

Ok explain how this is "art"

Or this
http://www.damienhirst.com/mother-and-child-divided-ex

http://www.damienhirst.com/togetherness

I also wondering why this is worth £50,000
https://www.othercriteria.com/search/?s=hirst%20spin%20rugs&p=Beautiful_abstract_landscape_rug

Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2769


« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2013, 10:10:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Ok explain how this is "art"

What do you mean by "art" ?

I also wondering why this is worth £50,000

Basic economics - it's worth what someone will pay.

Has anyone actually paid £50,000 ?
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2013, 11:33:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I was initially very receptive to the tenor of the article. It validated my sense of creative superiority as a person who condescends to create art. I print. I craft my work.  Blah, blah, blah, blah. But on further examination I felt like the article was written by a grouchy crank.

* More people making more photos will mean more bad photos are made.  It also means that more great photography will be made too.  Unfortunately it also means you have wade through lots more junk to find the good stuff.   The average remains pretty close to the same.  

* The Banff people have their aesthetic that they desire, but they didn't find enough submissions this year so they decided to pout. I wasn't impressed by that petulant gesture.  

* When critiquing quality of work, we need to try to separate our economic interests as working photographers from our critical and aesthetic judgements.  Lots of working pros suck.  Lots of amateurs are awesome. We are living in a renaissance of creative expression where everyone who creates quality can have an audience.  How is that not great for humanity!?

* The digital masturbation quote was clever, but we shouldn't be tempted to accept wittiness as a proxy for a quality of truth.  Since when has an artist being egocentric been an obstacle to creative greatness.  
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 27, 2013, 03:46:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting how often the "but is it art?" discussion recurs, given that these arguments are so hoary, at least in relation to "fine" art more so than to photography. A few thoughts stimulated by reading the thread.

The word "banal" - when applied to photography - is a slippery concept. There are quite a few enormously (commercially) successful photographers whose work, to me at least, is profoundly banal in the main, even if occasionally successful in a non-banal way. Egglestone for one example amongst numerous others.

Damien Hirst's been brought up as an example of "art" that isn't. Of course the same objections initially arose over the work of the great Marcel Duchamp who subsequently became recognised as a 20th century master and who almost single-handedly conceived the notion of "conceptual art". Unfortunately the wearisome attempts of contemporary artists to recapitulate these ideas has led them into a wasteland. Hirst's work, initially anyway, at least had the virtue of a sharp intelligence. The same cannot be said for many of his British contemporaries such as the abysmally talentless dipsomaniac, Tracy Emin.

Personally I tend to look for the presence of craft before calling anything "art" unless there's something really original that demands to be recognised. In which case I may or may not like it.

A few years ago a Czech friend exhibited a "piece" (as we must now call art exhibits) which featured a computer screen displaying successive snapshots sourced from friends' troves of digital images. After a few seconds display each was deleted and replaced by the word "deleted". I liked that.

Roy


Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2013, 09:49:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I was initially very receptive to the tenor of the article. It validated my sense of creative superiority as a person who condescends to create art. I print. I craft my work.  Blah, blah, blah, blah. But on further examination I felt like the article was written by a grouchy crank.
I agree. The article is long on clichéd criticism and opinions of the curmudgeonly "these yung'uns get it too easy, they don't suffer for their art like we had to" variety, while offering very little in the way of evidence or arguments. "Many more bad snapshots" does not imply "less good photos" If that were so, the invention of the Kodak Brownie would have been a disaster for photographic art.

The starting point is a competition that received so few entries (147) that the entry fees (CD$10 each) came to less than half the prize money (CD$3000), suggesting that the entries were far fewer than expected or than in previous years. So it could mostly be that this particular contest failed to generate much interest.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2769


« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2013, 09:56:12 AM »
ReplyReply

The starting point is a competition that received so few entries (147)...

The Globe and Mail story states a different number than the Media Release:

Previously:
  • 2012 -- 85 photo essays
  • 2011 -- 177 photo essays "Banff Mountain Photography Competition changed in 2011, with a call for photo essay entries rather than single images"
  • 2010 -- 2,500 photographs from 362 photographers in 35 countries
  • 2009 -- "This year we received over 4000 images from 600 photographers in 41 countries."
  • 2008 -- "These 17 winning images were selected from over 1900 submitted by photographers in 20 countries"
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 03:09:52 PM by Isaac » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2769


« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2013, 03:23:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I thought one of the most striking things was the implied victory of technique over content. What the guy was saying is that they had lots of perfectly exposed and processed pretty pictures, but none that meant anything, especially in the context of literally hundreds of other pretty pictures.

Does "what the guy was saying" take on a different complexion once we know they “are working to better define the competition’s guidelines for future years” ?
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2769


« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2013, 12:48:51 PM »
ReplyReply

If there's nothing to distinguish them (like a story) then what's the point?

Maybe the storytellers have moved to video -- "... five photographers who have chosen different approaches to documenting their subjects, appropriating film and multimedia into their image-making repertoire to develop a more narrative-led approach"
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2013, 02:57:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe the storytellers have moved to video -- "... five photographers who have chosen different approaches to documenting their subjects, appropriating film and multimedia into their image-making repertoire to develop a more narrative-led approach"

Hard to say on this. The accessibility to video is much bigger since the internet arrived no question/
On the other hand video has been around quite a long time too (just more people have access to be able to make it now)

Pretty much the same as stills photography, more people around and doing it. So both are the same in that regard.
On the other hand...

Photography didn't replacing painting/sketching/art type activities
And video doesn't replace the still image either.

Reminds me of that Dan Chung interview, and what does Dan do? Puts up a decent enough video with the usual expected somewhat corny sentimental soundtrack. So what's new? Nothing
I don't know about the PJ market, I don't see video replacing stills there either. They are different mediums and have unique approaches. The impact of a single image, one brief moment in time can never be reproduced with a video.
We don't need to start quoting Mark Twain I hope  Tongue

"The reports of my death ..." Grin
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2769


« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2013, 03:28:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Remember the context is a competition which required "a set or series of photographs that are intended to tell a story" where the judges decided "none of them managed to tell the simplest of stories."

Given that context, video might be an attractive medium for photographers who would otherwise be interested in creating the kind-of photo essays the judges wanted.
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2013, 04:08:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Video might be appealing in that regard. However how can we determine the competence or understanding of the judges?
Maybe there were some good photos there.

Judging art is like measuring poetry  Roll Eyes
(plays well known scene from dead poets society)

I mean can Simon Cowell actually sing? I've yet to see him grab a microphone.
I'm suspicious of armchair judges.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2769


« Reply #36 on: June 29, 2013, 05:22:47 PM »
ReplyReply

However how can we determine the competence or understanding of the judges?

Not by generalizing about movies and tv shows.

Judging art is like measuring poetry

That reminds me - What do you mean by "art" ?
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2013, 04:45:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Art is creative
Putting sausages in a frame isn't creative sorry it's just not!
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2013, 03:59:56 PM »
ReplyReply

without seeing the entries it's hard to say, this could be nothing more than three judges caught up in some agenda other than judging the merits of the work itself.  Seems that out of 500 entries, if it was a respectable competition, a few were not only well done but visually quite compelling and worthy of consideration.

While many good points have been made in this thread, we seem to get caught up in the fact that just because there are so many more images taken doesn't mean some aren't done well.  And as photographers who see many nice images of iconic locations or conditions, we forget that the public in general isn't really exposed to these images on a regular basis if at all.  It's difficult to be objective when judging if these concepts are ingrained in your personal thinking.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 08:30:39 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 869


WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 30, 2013, 05:41:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Humanity takes millions of photos every day. Why are most so forgettable?

Why is this article so forgettable? Just one more crappy rave on the web.

Cheers,
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad